Why Isn't Everyone an Atheist?

[Conservative65]

You can't prove that God does not exist any more than I can prove that He does. It all comes down to faith. I have faith and truly believe that God exists. You do not. End of story.

I have been asked on more than one occasion by an atheist for proof that God exists. The interesting thing is the type of proof they wanted was something they knew I couldn't provide. Therefore, I asked them for a type of proof of what they believed in a manner I knew they couldn't provide. The difference is they claimed my lack of ability to provide proof to their level of request meant my claims were false yet still expected me to believe what they did despite their lack to do the same for me.

The problem is that they are not willing to admit that the evidence of God's Word is the entire Universe.

I'm more than willing to admit that the evidence of God's word is the entire Universe, Max . . . kindly show me this evidence please. Thank you. ~ Susan

I don't understand why you would want evidence of something you don't believe. Why such a reaction to a simple statement that I made? Don't you think you are a bit over the top? Is it that important to you to disprove God? What benefits do you get from trashing my faith?

They don't. They ask for things they know can't be provided and use it to continue to deny.

 

[PratchettFan]

The problem is that they are not willing to admit that the evidence of God's Word is the entire Universe.

The universe, insofar as it is ever-expanding presence of physical matter and energy we can explore, is seemingly explained away as coming into existence "just because" and without any legitimate physical explanation. Theories abound, but no one can really explain from where the universe came. Singularity has been a popular theory but it is fraught with physical contradiction. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle pretty much negates the possibility of ever having all the atoms of the universe in one place and accounted for.

In addition, we have to consider that everything we know of materially, every element, compound, molecule, subatomic particle and atom, only makes up 4% of the universe. The rest is dark matter and dark energy, of which we know virtually nothing about. But there is something much more mysterious than dark energy or the physical universe itself, and that is TIME.

I belive that TIME is the ultimate "proof" for God's existence. Without Time, nothing in the universe matters and nothing can exist. To "exist" something must have time and space to exist in. We can measure the passing of time but the existence of time itself is elusive.

Neither the existence of the universe nor time is evidence, let alone proof, of God's existence. Evidence has to be demonstrably relevant to be evidence. You have to demonstrate some connection between it and that which it is claimed it is evidence of.

The reality is that we just don't know. It is the natural proclivity of human beings to try to fill in the blanks. For some reason, not knowing is something with which we have difficulty dealing. So we make up answers. That answer might be God, it might be randomness, it might be eternal existence. We can come up with any number of answers, but the truth is that we have not a clue what the correct answer is. It is all just a blind guess. One blind guess is no better than another blind guess.

I suppose that is why this is such a touchy subject. If I were to claim there was no such thing as gravity no one would bet upset. People know there is gravity so they don't feel at all threatened when it is denied. But God..... a totally different story. Question someone's position on God, whether it be positive or negative, and you force them to face the fact that they really don't know. People do not like that.

 

[PratchettFan]

You can't prove that God does not exist any more than I can prove that He does. It all comes down to faith. I have faith and truly believe that God exists. You do not. End of story.

I have been asked on more than one occasion by an atheist for proof that God exists. The interesting thing is the type of proof they wanted was something they knew I couldn't provide. Therefore, I asked them for a type of proof of what they believed in a manner I knew they couldn't provide. The difference is they claimed my lack of ability to provide proof to their level of request meant my claims were false yet still expected me to believe what they did despite their lack to do the same for me.

The problem is that they are not willing to admit that the evidence of God's Word is the entire Universe.

I don't understand why you would want evidence of something you don't believe. Why such a reaction to a simple statement that I made? Don't you think you are a bit over the top? Is it that important to you to disprove God? What benefits do you get from trashing my faith?

I don't believe because I've never seen any evidence that would justify my doing so. I, like all humans, am curious and perhaps would wish to believe in a God if empirical evidence could prove that He indeed does exist . . . I'm also curious about why others believe when they have no proof to justify, too, their doing so. ~ Susan

Why do you think it needs to be justified?

 

[JoeB131]

I think the OP asks a really good question, one that should be turned around and asked of the 'geniuses' who are atheists. They have obviously proven the Bible is a book of contradictions and myths, so why is it so many people still believe in it?

I answered that one pretty effectively.

People are afraid of dying.

So they ignore the bullshit in the bible- a book most of them haven't read much of, anyway - because, hey their priest promised them that when they die, they'll get to live forever in a paradise with all their lost loved ones and childhood dogs.

Forget the fact that if you read the scriptures, Jesus said very few of you are actually getting into heaven.

 

[PratchettFan]

I don't believe because I've never seen any evidence that would justify my doing so. I, like all humans, am curious and perhaps would wish to believe in a God if empirical evidence could prove that He indeed does exist . . . I'm also curious about why others believe when they have no proof to justify, too, their doing so. ~ Susan

I understand your point of view and I once contemplated the same questions. The problem begins with our ability to rationalize the context of what we have become familiar with. Let me explain what I mean... When you say "exist" in regards to God, it naturally implies the existence in physical reality or state of being. We can confirm things "exist" because we can touch them, see them, feel them, or experience the result of their presence, like gravity. And IF things exist, we can generally coalesce behind a thing we call "evidence" which is the confirmation of our aforementioned senses.

Okay... None of this stuff can or does apply to God. If it did or if it could, God would be a physical entity, explained and evidenced by physical science according to physical properties of nature. But God is spiritual energy and is not currently observable by physical science. So the "empirical evidence" for God can't come from physical science, at least not as of now. This is convenient for Atheists but it doesn't do a thing for the argument of God's existence.

To find the kind of evidence you need to prove God, you have to first open your mind to the acceptance of spiritual evidence. This means an understanding in context of spiritual existence as opposed to physical. Spirit is independent of the physical. This is the only logical approach one can take to find clear empirical evidence of God.

What you seem to be saying is that in order to believe, you first have to believe.

 

[Conservative65]

I think the OP asks a really good question, one that should be turned around and asked of the 'geniuses' who are atheists. They have obviously proven the Bible is a book of contradictions and myths, so why is it so many people still believe in it?

I answered that one pretty effectively.

People are afraid of dying.

So they ignore the bullshit in the bible- a book most of them haven't read much of, anyway - because, hey their priest promised them that when they die, they'll get to live forever in a paradise with all their lost loved ones and childhood dogs.

Forget the fact that if you read the scriptures, Jesus said very few of you are actually getting into heaven.

I'm not afraid of dying. That doesn't mean I want to now or anytime soon.

I'm well aware of what Jesus said about few getting into heaven. I'm also well aware of what he said about NONE of your kind going there. At least in paradise, those like you won't be a concern because you won't be there.

 

[Meriweather]

I suppose that is why this is such a touchy subject. If I were to claim there was no such thing as gravity no one would bet upset. People know there is gravity so they don't feel at all threatened when it is denied. But God..... a totally different story. Question someone's position on God, whether it be positive or negative, and you force them to face the fact that they really don't know. People do not like that.

I would say that instead of gravity, an anorexic or bulimic may make for the better analogy for why some get upset with the atheist. Ever try to get an anorexic to eat, or a bulimic to retain the nourishment provided? They reject nourishment as not wanted or needed for them, when to others it is obvious they would benefit from being nourished. Working with these people can be upsetting, even though their rejection of food is nothing to do with one's own intake of food.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Atheist always amaze me. They thump their chest and proclaim that there is no God. Why do they spend so much time trying to convince other people that there is no God if God is so unimportant to them? There is no Santa Claus. Why aren't there hundreds of OPs harping on the fact that they don't believe in Santa Claus? To an Atheist there is no difference.

 

[Newby]

If no one can do it, why isn't everyone an Atheist like me? Thank you. ~ Susan

Because you are special.

Actually, she asks a valid question.

We've heard about this weird belief in a magic guy who killed his son and all the rest - we've heard it all for so long that we're no longer shocked by it.

If one person says they see Napoleon, we think he's nuts. When millions see him, we come to think its normal.

Its not.

Its no more normal than believing you were abducted by aliens and anally probed.

So if millions insist that those wanting to have sex with the same gender are normal, and we've heard it for so long that we're no longer shocked by it, it's still not normal? Thanks!

Thank you for describing the leftist mindset/MO for just about everything they do!

You're very welcome, Newbie. And thank you for showing the board what right wing loving Christianity is all about . . . I seriously doubt that even Sarah Palin could have set a better example! Kudos back! ~ Susan

I don't believe I was speaking to you? And if voicing that the urge to have sex with the same gender is not normal behavior doesn't comport with what you define as 'love', I guess that's too bad. I don't live under your definitions or rules, and I think Christ would have said to those who lust and use sex only for physical gratification that they were sinning, as a matter of fact, He did just that many times. So I think His example of love is the one I choose to follow, not yours.

 

[Newby]

You can't prove that God does not exist any more than I can prove that He does. It all comes down to faith. I have faith and truly believe that God exists. You do not. End of story.

I have been asked on more than one occasion by an atheist for proof that God exists. The interesting thing is the type of proof they wanted was something they knew I couldn't provide. Therefore, I asked them for a type of proof of what they believed in a manner I knew they couldn't provide. The difference is they claimed my lack of ability to provide proof to their level of request meant my claims were false yet still expected me to believe what they did despite their lack to do the same for me.

The problem is that they are not willing to admit that the evidence of God's Word is the entire Universe.

I'm more than willing to admit that the evidence of God's word is the entire Universe, Max . . . kindly show me this evidence please. Thank you. ~ Susan

I don't understand why you would want evidence of something you don't believe. Why such a reaction to a simple statement that I made? Don't you think you are a bit over the top? Is it that important to you to disprove God? What benefits do you get from trashing my faith?

It stems from their own insecurities about what they believe, they can't just quietly go about their lives and keep their faith to themselves (and being an atheist takes as much faith, if not more so, than being a Christian), they have to attack people who live or believe differently than them because they lack the love, compassion, and intellect to understand it.

 

[Conservative65]

You can't prove that God does not exist any more than I can prove that He does. It all comes down to faith. I have faith and truly believe that God exists. You do not. End of story.

I have been asked on more than one occasion by an atheist for proof that God exists. The interesting thing is the type of proof they wanted was something they knew I couldn't provide. Therefore, I asked them for a type of proof of what they believed in a manner I knew they couldn't provide. The difference is they claimed my lack of ability to provide proof to their level of request meant my claims were false yet still expected me to believe what they did despite their lack to do the same for me.

The problem is that they are not willing to admit that the evidence of God's Word is the entire Universe.

I'm more than willing to admit that the evidence of God's word is the entire Universe, Max . . . kindly show me this evidence please. Thank you. ~ Susan

I don't understand why you would want evidence of something you don't believe. Why such a reaction to a simple statement that I made? Don't you think you are a bit over the top? Is it that important to you to disprove God? What benefits do you get from trashing my faith?

It stems from their own insecurities about what they believe, they can't just quietly go about their lives and keep their faith to themselves (and being an atheist takes as much faith, if not more so, than being a Christian), they have to attack people who live or believe differently than them because they lack the love, compassion, and intellect to understand it.

I'll tell any atheist that what I believe is based on faith. The interesting thing is that what they believe is also based on faith yet they don't understand that it is. Most atheists believe in evolution. Unless they've done the experiments personally, they have to trust the data and findings from someone else they use to support their claims. That makes them the same as a Christian operating by faith.

 

[Ava]

The reason why not everyone is an atheist?

Because deep down, we are all afraid of dying. and if you aren't you're an idiot.

Religion gives us the comforting hope that after we die, we continue.

I am agnostic and NOT afraid of dying. IF I had to choose between being an atheist or a Christian, I would choose becoming a Christian. The people I like, respect and admire the most, are Christians. I also adore one atheist; the most peaceful, beautiful, generous and kind, non-judgmental person I have ever met in my life. I tell her all the time, she is another Mother Teresa.

I'm happy and content settling for the Golden Rule, as my guide.

 

[PratchettFan]

I suppose that is why this is such a touchy subject. If I were to claim there was no such thing as gravity no one would bet upset. People know there is gravity so they don't feel at all threatened when it is denied. But God..... a totally different story. Question someone's position on God, whether it be positive or negative, and you force them to face the fact that they really don't know. People do not like that.

I would say that instead of gravity, an anorexic or bulimic may make for the better analogy for why some get upset with the atheist. Ever try to get an anorexic to eat, or a bulimic to retain the nourishment provided? They reject nourishment as not wanted or needed for them, when to others it is obvious they would benefit from being nourished. Working with these people can be upsetting, even though their rejection of food is nothing to do with one's own intake of food.

That analogy ignores reality. If you don't eat you die. If you don't believe in God, you do not die. It doesn't even work with the idea that religion is beneficial to the individual. I know quite a few Theists who are miserable and Atheists are just fine. And vice versa. Food is nourishing to everyone - religion is nourishing only to those who are nourished by it. Frankly, I would be surprised if those who are nourished by it (as opposed to just casually believing or enjoying the social contact) were not a rather small minority.

 

[Meriweather]

That analogy ignores reality. If you don't eat you die. If you don't believe in God, you do not die. It doesn't even work with the idea that religion is beneficial to the individual. I know quite a few Theists who are miserable and Atheists are just fine. And vice versa. Food is nourishing to everyone - religion is nourishing only to those who are nourished by it. Frankly, I would be surprised if those who are nourished by it (as opposed to just casually believing or enjoying the social contact) were not a rather small minority.

I understand. All analogies fail at some point. Your analogy of gravity can only go so far; my analogy of anorexics and bulimics also only takes us so far. Everyone does die a physical death, but believers also believe one can die a spiritual death. If we saw someone on the roof shouting, "I do not believe in gravity! I will jump off this roof and live!" we would try to convince this person not to jump. In the same way, we try to convince anorexics and bulimics to take in nourishment, and non-believers to have a care for their spiritual existence/life.

Some believers say those who do not believe as they do, are condemned. I don't see it this way. I see people who choose hate and evil as condemned, but I don't feel the same is true for people who choose love and goodness--but have no belief in God. I see people who choose love and goodness as following the Way of God, whether they believe in Him or not--and I believe this will suffice.

Since I do believe, in fact since I know, (I have had my own experiences of God), I cannot deny His existence, and I do speak out and support what I--and others down through the ages--have experienced. This is not to convince anyone (including my atheist husband and other family atheists) that they should believe. Rather it is to provide them with the understanding of me--of why I believe (and will not let go) of what they do not see as plausible. And I encourage them in their own goodness and support their love.

 

[PratchettFan]

That analogy ignores reality. If you don't eat you die. If you don't believe in God, you do not die. It doesn't even work with the idea that religion is beneficial to the individual. I know quite a few Theists who are miserable and Atheists are just fine. And vice versa. Food is nourishing to everyone - religion is nourishing only to those who are nourished by it. Frankly, I would be surprised if those who are nourished by it (as opposed to just casually believing or enjoying the social contact) were not a rather small minority.

I understand. All analogies fail at some point. Your analogy of gravity can only go so far; my analogy of anorexics and bulimics also only takes us so far. Everyone does die a physical death, but believers also believe one can die a spiritual death. If we saw someone on the roof shouting, "I do not believe in gravity! I will jump off this roof and live!" we would try to convince this person not to jump. In the same way, we try to convince anorexics and bulimics to take in nourishment, and non-believers to have a care for their spiritual existence/life.

Some believers say those who do not believe as they do, are condemned. I don't see it this way. I see people who choose hate and evil as condemned, but I don't feel the same is true for people who choose love and goodness--but have no belief in God. I see people who choose love and goodness as following the Way of God, whether they believe in Him or not--and I believe this will suffice.

Since I do believe, in fact since I know, (I have had my own experiences of God), I cannot deny His existence, and I do speak out and support what I--and others down through the ages--have experienced. This is not to convince anyone (including my atheist husband and other family atheists) that they should believe. Rather it is to provide them with the understanding of me--of why I believe (and will not let go) of what they do not see as plausible. And I encourage them in their own goodness and support their love.

While you may well attempt to convince the person they are wrong for thinking there is no gravity, I doubt you will feel your beliefs have been attacked by him. I think my analogy holds up pretty well, since it is to demonstrate the difference between knowledge and belief. And please, I am speaking in a general manner, not in regards to any given individual. I'm talking about human behavior, not the behavior of a particular person.

I can only say that while I understand you believe, that does not equate to your knowing. Of course, it is possible you do know. The difference is that with gravity we can share that experience. We can both jump up and down and have a practical demonstration of gravity. With your claim of knowledge, it cannot be shared. I must accept your statement at face value with no ability to test it.

I too have had my own experiences. They may even be similar to yours. However, I am fairly sure that my interpretation of those experiences are quite different from yours. And so we are back to facing the unknown. If we are experiencing the same thing, then as certain as you might be as to what that means in terms of God, I am equally certain it means what I think it means. We can't both be right, if we are experiencing the same thing, but it is quite possible we can both be wrong.

 

[Boss]

I think the OP asks a really good question, one that should be turned around and asked of the 'geniuses' who are atheists. They have obviously proven the Bible is a book of contradictions and myths, so why is it so many people still believe in it?

I answered that one pretty effectively.

People are afraid of dying.

So they ignore the bullshit in the bible- a book most of them haven't read much of, anyway - because, hey their priest promised them that when they die, they'll get to live forever in a paradise with all their lost loved ones and childhood dogs.

Forget the fact that if you read the scriptures, Jesus said very few of you are actually getting into heaven.

People are afraid of dying.

Yes, I addressed "fear of mortality" in my post, did you miss that? Do people who believe in God not die? So there is no rational basis to believe that believing in God leads to immortality. Also, can you name any other living organism which fears mortality? All life strives to continue living or avoid death, but only humans worry about what happens after death. The REASON for this is our intrinsic spiritual awareness. The hard-wired understanding of something beyond mortality.

 

[Boss]

I don't believe because I've never seen any evidence that would justify my doing so. I, like all humans, am curious and perhaps would wish to believe in a God if empirical evidence could prove that He indeed does exist . . . I'm also curious about why others believe when they have no proof to justify, too, their doing so. ~ Susan

I understand your point of view and I once contemplated the same questions. The problem begins with our ability to rationalize the context of what we have become familiar with. Let me explain what I mean... When you say "exist" in regards to God, it naturally implies the existence in physical reality or state of being. We can confirm things "exist" because we can touch them, see them, feel them, or experience the result of their presence, like gravity. And IF things exist, we can generally coalesce behind a thing we call "evidence" which is the confirmation of our aforementioned senses.

Okay... None of this stuff can or does apply to God. If it did or if it could, God would be a physical entity, explained and evidenced by physical science according to physical properties of nature. But God is spiritual energy and is not currently observable by physical science. So the "empirical evidence" for God can't come from physical science, at least not as of now. This is convenient for Atheists but it doesn't do a thing for the argument of God's existence.

To find the kind of evidence you need to prove God, you have to first open your mind to the acceptance of spiritual evidence. This means an understanding in context of spiritual existence as opposed to physical. Spirit is independent of the physical. This is the only logical approach one can take to find clear empirical evidence of God.

What you seem to be saying is that in order to believe, you first have to believe.

In a sense, yes... BUT.... This is the case with virtually anything you believe. In order to believe anything, you must first accept the possibility of what it is you are trying to believe in. Case in point, you can explain scientifically how rain happens, but if I reject scientific explanations because I don't believe in science and I think rain is God crying, then there is nothing you can do for me. I am not willing to accept science so scientific explanations are useless in establishing belief.

Another example... There's a haunted house where everyone says ghosts roam the halls at midnight. If you don't believe in the paranormal, you probably don't believe ghosts are roaming the halls. Even if you went there and experienced strange things, you would find a way to rationalize the experience because you don't believe in the possibility of ghosts.

My point is that "evidence" is subjective and entirely dependent on what the mind perceives as possible. You may view something as evidence and I may think it's bullshit.

 

[PratchettFan]

I think the OP asks a really good question, one that should be turned around and asked of the 'geniuses' who are atheists. They have obviously proven the Bible is a book of contradictions and myths, so why is it so many people still believe in it?

I answered that one pretty effectively.

People are afraid of dying.

So they ignore the bullshit in the bible- a book most of them haven't read much of, anyway - because, hey their priest promised them that when they die, they'll get to live forever in a paradise with all their lost loved ones and childhood dogs.

Forget the fact that if you read the scriptures, Jesus said very few of you are actually getting into heaven.

People are afraid of dying.

Yes, I addressed "fear of mortality" in my post, did you miss that? Do people who believe in God not die? So there is no rational basis to believe that believing in God leads to immortality. Also, can you name any other living organism which fears mortality? All life strives to continue living or avoid death, but only humans worry about what happens after death. The REASON for this is our intrinsic spiritual awareness. The hard-wired understanding of something beyond mortality.

I think not. Our fear of death derives from our need to predict the future. I imagine there is a tiger behind that rock so I will move cautiously. Failure to imagine the tiger means I don't prepare for the tiger, so I get eaten. We fear death because we imagine, not because we are spiritual. It's a survival trait.

 

[Hollie]

I have been asked on more than one occasion by an atheist for proof that God exists. The interesting thing is the type of proof they wanted was something they knew I couldn't provide. Therefore, I asked them for a type of proof of what they believed in a manner I knew they couldn't provide. The difference is they claimed my lack of ability to provide proof to their level of request meant my claims were false yet still expected me to believe what they did despite their lack to do the same for me.

The problem is that they are not willing to admit that the evidence of God's Word is the entire Universe.

I'm more than willing to admit that the evidence of God's word is the entire Universe, Max . . . kindly show me this evidence please. Thank you. ~ Susan

I don't understand why you would want evidence of something you don't believe. Why such a reaction to a simple statement that I made? Don't you think you are a bit over the top? Is it that important to you to disprove God? What benefits do you get from trashing my faith?

It stems from their own insecurities about what they believe, they can't just quietly go about their lives and keep their faith to themselves (and being an atheist takes as much faith, if not more so, than being a Christian), they have to attack people who live or believe differently than them because they lack the love, compassion, and intellect to understand it.

I'll tell any atheist that what I believe is based on faith. The interesting thing is that what they believe is also based on faith yet they don't understand that it is. Most atheists believe in evolution. Unless they've done the experiments personally, they have to trust the data and findings from someone else they use to support their claims. That makes them the same as a Christian operating by faith.

What nonsense. What's missing in your flawed and cliched attempt to disparage science are the disciplines of peer review, objective analysis of the data and the discipline of the scientific method. Your attempt at analogy by comparing science to your belief in the supernatural fails on many levels. The many sciences supporting evolution are purely of the natural (rational) world. The processes of biological evolution have left evidence to confirm their existence. We can test for them and measure their affects. We can submit those tests for peer review to confirm results. The most important piece you left out of the scientific environment was the need for peer review. If a scientist sits in his lab and discovers an element of biology that supports biological evolution but never submits it for peer review, he hasn't done anything, at least as far as the rest of science is concerned. It does matter that biological evolution left evidence and we can see these evidences directly and we can make predictions about evolution that meet tests as confirmation. Evidence is the final arbiter of truth – which we identify.

Now tell me. How does one test for your supernatural realms and various gawds?

 

[PratchettFan]

I don't believe because I've never seen any evidence that would justify my doing so. I, like all humans, am curious and perhaps would wish to believe in a God if empirical evidence could prove that He indeed does exist . . . I'm also curious about why others believe when they have no proof to justify, too, their doing so. ~ Susan

I understand your point of view and I once contemplated the same questions. The problem begins with our ability to rationalize the context of what we have become familiar with. Let me explain what I mean... When you say "exist" in regards to God, it naturally implies the existence in physical reality or state of being. We can confirm things "exist" because we can touch them, see them, feel them, or experience the result of their presence, like gravity. And IF things exist, we can generally coalesce behind a thing we call "evidence" which is the confirmation of our aforementioned senses.

Okay... None of this stuff can or does apply to God. If it did or if it could, God would be a physical entity, explained and evidenced by physical science according to physical properties of nature. But God is spiritual energy and is not currently observable by physical science. So the "empirical evidence" for God can't come from physical science, at least not as of now. This is convenient for Atheists but it doesn't do a thing for the argument of God's existence.

To find the kind of evidence you need to prove God, you have to first open your mind to the acceptance of spiritual evidence. This means an understanding in context of spiritual existence as opposed to physical. Spirit is independent of the physical. This is the only logical approach one can take to find clear empirical evidence of God.

What you seem to be saying is that in order to believe, you first have to believe.

In a sense, yes... BUT.... This is the case with virtually anything you believe. In order to believe anything, you must first accept the possibility of what it is you are trying to believe in. Case in point, you can explain scientifically how rain happens, but if I reject scientific explanations because I don't believe in science and I think rain is God crying, then there is nothing you can do for me. I am not willing to accept science so scientific explanations are useless in establishing belief.

Another example... There's a haunted house where everyone says ghosts roam the halls at midnight. If you don't believe in the paranormal, you probably don't believe ghosts are roaming the halls. Even if you went there and experienced strange things, you would find a way to rationalize the experience because you don't believe in the possibility of ghosts.

My point is that "evidence" is subjective and entirely dependent on what the mind perceives as possible. You may view something as evidence and I may think it's bullshit.

It depends upon what you mean by "evidence". In a legal or scientific approach, evidence is not subjective. If it is not objective and relevant, it isn't evidence. Someone might well see that differently, but then the word becomes meaningless. The whole point of something being evidence is that it can be used to demonstrate something. If it can't, then it is useless.

I disagree your approach applies to all belief. I believe my children love me. I have had a lot of evidence to support that belief, but I can't look inside their heads to confirm it. It is an educated guess. However, what you seem to have said is that if I simply believe in God, then that will allow me to see the evidence of God in order to believe in God. Which simply means in order to get there, I have to already be there. And I will say that I agree with you, but I think that says a lot more about human beings than it does about God.

This really all arises from our own beliefs. I am assuming you are a Christian, which means you have a view on how we interact with God. I am a Buddhist and I don't believe there is any interaction with God at all. So your interpretation of the "evidence" is not going to be my interpretation because our beliefs are coloring our perceptions.