I did not say there is no evidence, I said there is no proof. Evidence is not proof.
Evidence: the available body of facts or information
indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
https://www.google.com/searchevidence definition - Google Search
Evidence is anything that you see, experience,
read, or are
told that
causes you to believe that something is true or has
really happened.
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary
Now give us the technical definition. This is a technical discussion of epistemology, after all.
Proof: evidence or argument
establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement:
https://www.google.com/search
In philosophy, "proof" is a technical, mathematical term. Only mathematicians attempt to prove anything.
This isn't a casual, offhand discussion. It's a serious, apologetic debate, and we need to use technical words in their strict, technical sense, if we're to avoid talking past each other or strawmanning.
We're not looking for proof. we're seeking the best evidenced conclusions, based on the strongest empirical evidence, logically analysed.
There are many kinds of evidence, and not all evidence is verifiable. Verifiable evidence is proof because it establishes something as a fact.
Verifiable evidence is not "proof."
None of the evidence for God that I'm aware of is tangible, testable, repeatable, or productive. This is what's meant by empirical, objective evidence. Such evidence is epistemically valid.
Subjective evidence; perceptible only to an individual and not tangible, measurable or testable, is empirically iseless, is it not?
Fact: something that is
known to have
happened or to
exist,
especially something for which
proof exists, or about which there is
information:
Again, a colloquial definition, too vague, broad and ambiguous to be useful in serious discussion.
So... how is God "known to exist?" Are you using an unevidenced conclusion as a premise?
I do not need proof because I have evidence.
Quite reasonable. Evidence is all any of us have, but there are degrees of evidence, as you know, plus, if your evidence is subjective, it's apologetically useless. It's evidence persuasive to you alone.
I can explain how I arrived at my conclusions, but that doesn't mean that others will recognize what I say as evidenced and reasoned, since all human beings reason in their own particular way, with what is contained in their own mind.
Yet logic is mathematically inflexible. It's a branch of algebra. A conclusion is either valid or not. People may reason in their own way, but only one way is correct and productive of valid conclusions. That's why we heretics are constantly objecting to theistic "proofs," claims, and evidence. We're pointing out real mathematical errors, as well as erroneous or unsupported facts.
Just because others do not recognize it as evidenced and reasoned doesn't mean it isn't.
There is nothing logical about what you are saying. Everyone reasons differently, and I cannot make you reason the way I do since you do not think with my mind. What is in my mind is wholly different from what is in your mind since I have had a different education and different life experiences. Why would other people think like me? Even other Baha'is do not think like me, although we believe some of the same things.
Yes, but algebraic equations are not subjective. Logic is the same for everyone, everywhere.
Evidence, of couse, varies, and may also be subjective or objective. Bad objective evidence often yields erroneous conclusions, so it's important that evidence be well supported, empirically.
Reasoned conclusions don't vary by individual. Given the same input, logic and reason yield consistent output if used correctly. What's in "individual minds" doesn't alter the equations.
A hundred different calculators, working the same equation, would all yeld the same result.
Subjective evidence has been used in apologetics for millennia, but, being subjective, has never yielded consistent or robust conclusions. It's led to a million different opinions, conclusions and religions. Subjective evidence is neither demonstrable nor reliable.
Thus far, there is no evidence that will convince you, but that doesn't mean there is no evidence. You would have to think about the evidence differently than you do now in order to accept it as evidence.
Epistemically acceptable evidence is never subjective. Only concrete, tangible evidence will yield consistent, reliable conclusions, accepted universally.