Do you have any evidence for this claim, Shaker?
I wouldn't have thought that I would have had to (a cumbersome phrase in English to be sure, but grammatically sound), but OK. You are one of the set of members of this forum who claim a belief in a god, therefore you must presumably have some sort of concept in your mind of what it is that you claim a belief in - that is unless, of course, that you believe completely randomly and gratuitously in something of which you have no conception. In my experience, in matters religious this is very far from unusual, I can assure you.
If you want to broaden the discussion outside the paramters of this here lil' forum, I've read a great many texts over a great many years by people who claim a belief in a god or gods of some sort and of various permutations. Unless you adhere to the scenario I've just outlined - i.e. people believe completely randomly and gratuitously in something of which they have no conception - presumably you must think that in believing in
X they must have some concept in mind of
X however rough, ready and rudimentary.
As I've said many times before, there will probably never be a time when purely naturalistic evidence will be provided for a non-natural phenomenon.
So provide a methodology by which we can all evaluate these claims of non-natural things. You
claim that you've provided such a thing elsewhere and have had other people flummoxed by it - so why not do the same here? If it's too long to type out all over again (something I fully understand), no worries - just provide a link to those forums where you claim that you've done so in times past, so that we can all have a look.
Seriously, what's the problem here? How much simpler can we make it for you?
That doesn't mean that belief in God is not objective.
A
belief in God is absolutely objective - that's not the bit which is in dispute. It's the objective existence of the content of that particular belief, the referent of the statement "I believe in God", which is in dispute. And will remain so.