I would like you to explain/describe what you regard as acceptable evidence to support the truth of a belief.
I'm pretty sure I have said many times now it can not be done. The technology does not exist. That's why belief is based on reason not evidence.
Quite honestly, I have no clue what your position is. That quote above seems to make it clear that there is NO evidence that you would regard as sufficient to support the truth of a belief. Such evidence, you say, does not exist. Evidence does not support belief. Okay, fine.
But now - again - you shift your focus and say that:
I believe existence itself is evidence.....
Actual unexplained miracles happen.....
The human body has actual changes in brain activity when having a spiritual experience.....
That's three claims - the last 2 of which are eminently testable as evidence, which I would have been happy to discuss - but then, again, you switch your tack and say that
I do not have evidence that holds up to your standards.....
This last is particularly dishonest, because - so far - I have not laid down any standards for evidence. I have been waiting (somewhat impatiently) for YOU to set down the standards of evidence acceptable for a belief. So let's have less dishonesty from you Junebug, YOU are the one refusing to even suggest a standard for evidence - unless that standard is "evidence is impossible". Which flies in the face of statements like "The human body has actual changes in brain activity when having a spiritual experience", something which - to me - seems eminently testable.
I really, honestly, do not understand what you are suggesting.
One day, you say "there is NO evidence possible - we simply cannot detect or measure god".
On another day, you make specific claims about "actual changes in brain activity when having a spiritual experience", which would be the first step towards evidence.
Help me out Junebug. Which is it?