What do believers say when you ask or tell them..

[Ryft]

[The claim is true because on] the very face of it, it seems like there can be no objective evidence that God exists at our current point in time.

I have no choice but to reject your answer, because it had nothing to do with the question I asked. Let me explain.

The answer you gave me was, "It seems true prima facie." But notice that word "seems" right there; that refers to your thinking, informing me of your cognition. But my question did not inquire about you; it asked something about the claim; i.e., I asked if it is true (in itself), not if it seems true (to you). So perhaps I should back up and ask my first question again, now that you know what's actually being asked.

TAVARISH: There is no objective evidence to support the claim that God exists.
ARCANUS: Is that claim true?
TAVARISH:

I don't have empirical evidence to prove the non-existence of something.

That's okay, nobody's asking that of you.

I'm talking about the belief that God exists objectively ... that the concept's existence can only be verified through subjective and rather questionable means.

(emphasis mine)

The reason why the belief and the concept can only be verified subjectively is because both of those things are items of cognition, internal or belonging to the thinking person. They are subjective by definition, accessible only to the person cognizing them. They are held in the mind. Beliefs and concepts both are subjective. It is unreasonable to expect, much less ask for, objective evidence for that which is subjective by nature. As I said previously, you are conflating belief in God (internal to the person) with the existence of God (external to the person).

[Re: "A lack of belief in God is anything but unbiased."] I'd have to disagree with you.

You shouldn't, so I suspect you have faulty understanding of what 'biased' means.

Atheism is biased by definition. In the first place, it is "a particular tendency or inclination" toward godless beliefs and values; i.e., an atheist by definition is far more likely than not to prefer and form beliefs and values that make no reference to God. And naturally that "inhibits impartial judgment" when it comes to evaluating claims, notably those that involve God. Atheism is NOT impartial, for an absence of God is at the starting point of all evaluation.

A lack of belief would be the default position.

What somebody does or doesn't believe could not possibly be any more irrelevant! The degree of its irrelevance practically defies comprehension! So you have not found any good reason to believe God exists. Okay, but... so what? The beliefs you have or don't have tells us about you, and not a thing about the real world. Nobody is going to learn anything about the nature of reality by discovering what your beliefs happen to look like and your reasons for them. They'll only learn stuff about you.

Would not faith be dependent on personal feelings?

Partly, but not wholly. That's why your statement was false.

Would not faith be considered purely subjective by the very definition of the word?

No, because its definition includes objective elements (e.g., notitia). You have a shamefully blinkered notion of what faith is, no doubt influenced by a diet of straw man rhetoric. And considering how engrained this straw man view is, you've been taking it in for a very long time.

What would be objective evidence of God's existence?

Evidence that is independent of the thinking person. That's what 'objective' means. And on this same issue, the demand for evidence must be appropriate for the claim in question; i.e., empirical evidence for empirical claims, non-empirical evidence for non-empirical claims.

Exactly my point. The fact that you fail to defend your claim gives me reason not to believe it.

You really need to extract yourself from such feculent and sloppy rhetoric. I mean, what manner of nonsense is this here? The fact that I failed to defend my claim? What claim? Absolutely every single claim I've made in our conversation I've backed up solidly, so what claim could you possibly be referring to? Speaking of indefensible claims! I have a strong suspicion that you're going to retract this claim here, and that would be good. But what would be even better is if you abandon the habit of such rhetorical twaddle, characterizing your opponent with nonsense that doesn't even square with reality. It fails the test of rationality and leaves little to be proud of.

And again, what you do or don't believe has no significance beyond biographical value.

As the foundation of your worldview (the Bible), how would you verify its validity independently?

It's the fundamental presupposition at bottom of my entire world view, I said. Presuppositions aren't verified, they are presupposed.

Now, you might want to fault me somehow on this so let me spin things around to make a point you've probably never thought about before. Your standard of evidence is independent empirical verification, right? How do you independently verify the validity of that standard? Do you use your standard of evidence to verify your standard of evidence?

---

You said you used the Bible as evidence ...

No, I did not.