God's Existence Is Personal Opinion

I find it odd that you would agree that not only God's existence is subjective, but ALL things are subjective. I was also quite shocked to see you say "science cannot prove God existence. we can all there are subjective experiences come to the conclusion that he exists" [sic]. Isn't the debate over right then and there? You have agreed that God's existence is a subjective matter, or a personal opinion. You have agreed that an objective science cannot prove there is a God (and likewise I agree that science cannot prove there is no God). My burning question for you, is how do you intend to win the debate by agreeing with me? --- So first I will address the idea that "everything is subjective". It's not a new idea, and for me the best response to solipsism, or the "brains in jars theory" is Penn Jillettes's rant on it how "[it's a solid argument, but let's just say there's a real reality out there]". It can't be disproved but of course a hypothesis that can't be disproved, or a calculation that takes infinite steps, or anything of that nature that can't be answered we have no choice but to move on from. Unless you would rather die old looking for an answer to a paradox? The philosopher that spends all his time questioning whether the steak in front of him is real or not will go by the way of hunger. The only way to make progress of any sort is to assume that there is a real reality out there. So let's do that. I will now argue that objectivity is inseparably linked to evidence. It is apparent that objectivity requires evidence. The scientific method is built upon this idea. We need numbers, data, empirical evidence, quantitative observations, and things like that in order to observe a trend in nature. My proposition is as follows: (an example of an objective claim is that rocks weigh more than balloons of equal volume. A theory is that the force of gravity is proportional to mass). Note: Data and evidence are used interchangeably. (P1) Trends of nature, AKA scientific theories, come from experimental data (A) No theories can be induced without data - this follows from P1 (P2) Objective observation is the only way to test a claim or prediction (P3) Observation requires the accumulation of data in some form (B) Without data, no one can validate predictions - follows from P2 and P3 (C) No theories that predict future events can be induced without data - follows from A and B Objective claims cannot be disagreed upon. If they cannot be disagreed upon, two people who happen to disagree must necessarily have some sort of way to resolve their disagreement. A disagreement between two people can only be resolved in the future obviously. And in order for it to be resolved in the future, they must have a prediction that can be tested. Using the example from above, we could be in disagreement on whether or not mass determines the weight of an object. I might say "the more volume it has, the heavier it is". You might say "no, it's the total mass that causes the weight force". This dispute can be objectively resolved with a simple test. We use newton meters to weigh different objects, and record both their volume in cubic meters and their mass in grams. And what will be the outcome of that? I think objectively, we agree that you would have the data to back up your claim. So you are open to dispute any of my propositions above, or criticize my logical deductions. In summary, the conclusion is that objectivity can only be applied with the help of data. --- However, when there is no data, people will form their own beliefs or hypotheses. The most obvious example of this is with religion. I might say "there is no God". A Christian might say "God is the father, the son, and the holy spirit. He is 3 persons in one, 3 entities in one, like water is ice, liquid, and vapor". A Muslim might say "no, there is only one God, there is no God but the one true God". A Hindu might say "No, there are many Gods." So how do we test these claims? We agree that we can't. No one can die and go to an afterlife, and then come back to life and tell us what happened. We have no evidence there. No one can record the voice of God, and upload the soundclip to Soundcloud or Youtube for everyone to hear, so we have no empirical data on that either. In the absence of empirical data, the existence of God is entirely subjective. It is personal opinion. Some people may lean one way or the other for various reasons or experiences they have. I cannot judge their experiences because I have not had them, and likewise they cannot judge my experiences because they have not had them. There is no shared data between me, and atheist, and a Christian or Jew or Muslim. As I proved above, we can't come up with some sort of test to see if God exists or not because we have no data to base a theory on in the first place. --- That is all I wish to say for round 2. I believe that god's existence is a matter of personal opinion. If it were not, we could resolve all religious disputes and then repurpose all the buildings built to worship the wrong god as coffee shops or warehouses or theatres or any other business. That's not going to happen any time soon, is it? And why not - because belief in god is subjective.