[Oberon]

LeGrande, my post only addressed theism vs. atheism on the basis of personal experience, leaving other approaches to the topic for another discussion, some other time.

Regardless, I would point out to you that there is such a thing as subjective evidence...evidence that is entirely sufficient for me, but not at all adequate for you. For example, let's say that you once met Paul Newman at a dinner party. You tell someone "I once met Paul Newman at a dinner party," and they challenge you with "Oh yeah? Prove it!"

Your experience is adequate to prove to you that you once met Paul Newman; you can remember he was drinking red wine, and he told a story about Robert Redford. However, your experience is utterly inadequate as proof to anyone else who didn't happen to also be at that same party. This is what I mean by experiential evidence.

So when you say "First, the existence of God is not a proven fact," you may be correct in the classical sense of the word "proof," in that the existence of God has not been logically proven to an objective standard. You may also be correct according to your personal experience, which contains within it no evidence for the existence of God, let alone proof.

However, you cannot assess others' experiential evidence.

[LeGrande]

You tell someone "I once met Paul Newman at a dinner party," and they challenge you with "Oh yeah? Prove it!"

While Paul Newman is alive it is relatively easy to prove that I met Paul Newman. All we have to do is ask Paul Newman. Proof is easy.

However, you cannot assess others' experiential evidence.

You are correct, but without evidence to support their experiental evidence it can be dismissed without evidence. Would you believe me if I told you that I had a pink Unicorn that talks to me?