(continued...) How do you know there is a God to accept? It's a simple question, Jan. Why do you dodge it all the time? I take it that you have recognised your over-reach and you're back-peddling furiously. You ought to be honest and retract your silly claim, Jan, since you know you can't support it. Alternatively, if you think you can support it after all, please do so. If you can explain how babies know God, that might give us insight into how you or I know God. As things stand, there are only your assertions. This thread is supposed to tear down those barriers, Jan. You, as theist, tell us how this knowledge of God comes to all of us. What is the justification for your knowledge claim? Is there evidence that God is real? You could to start a separate thread for that, or use one of the existing ones in which you whine on about supposed atheist delusion. This thread, as you will recall, is about evidence for God. Is there evidence that God is merciful? Is there evidence that God can grant remembrance or forgetfulness? (Should we perhaps defer consideration of such things until after we have established the base reality of God?) In a thread titled "evidence for God", don't you think it would be appropriate to suggest some evidence for God? It's fine if you don't have any. Such an admission might advance the discussion - maybe even obviate the need for the thread - potentially. See, the problem is that you seem to want a bet each way on this, too. You claim there is evidence to be had, but when push comes to shove you jack up and refuse to provide any. Is that because it is hard for you to present the evidence? Or is the claim to evidence a sham on your part? You have clearly stated that you do not need evidence to bolster your own belief. I'm fine with that. You are free to believe what you like for entirely irrational reasons, as far as I'm concerned. But the fact remains that, as far as I can recall, you have on multiple occasions told us that there is evidence to be had. So where is it? You are trying to shift the burden of proof, to make it that atheists have to prove a negative. Rather than atheists having to show that there is no possibility of ever finding evidence for God, wouldn't it be easier for everyone if theists simply presented some positive evidence for God? Are you saying that only certain special people, like yourself, have access to the God evidence, and that this evidence is somehow concealed from or inaccessible to atheists? Is it that one must possess the pass-key of theistic belief before one is allowed to access the secret/restricted evidence for God? I find it hard to imagine what objective evidence for God would look like, such that it would be inaccessible based on a person's existing religious beliefs. Can you explain how that works, please? Or is this a circular argument? If you believe in God, then you'll also believe there is evidence, and if you don't, you won't? Why is the existence or accessibility of evidence dependent on one's attitude? I also sense that we're straying into that blank area of difficulty you have when it comes to the ability to distinguish the objective from the subjective. It sounds like you're saying the existence of evidence for God is real for you, but not real for me, and that the objective reality of the evidence is somehow tied to our respective personal impressions or opinions. Does dreaming about evidence make it appear? Are you saying there is no evidence for God outside of our own existence? I have addressed the problems with such a view in a recent post. See above.