To me talking god is a failed proposition as if what is being claimed without evidence could involve real facts, when it is just make believe.
How do you know if, where, how, why the term god entails and what valid method did you employ to establish such claimed knowledge, and is the method you have confirmed reliable in other non magical claims? If its believed to be a justified method, how are you confirming that you are property equipped to utilize it fully to trust what you think it could show?
I follow the standard in philosophy Justified True Beliefs = knowledge and when such knowledge reaches a high or the highest epistemic standard it can be dubbed epistemically certain.
To established justification I use the philosophy called Reliabilism.
Reliabilism is a general approach to epistemology that emphasizes the truth-conduciveness of a belief-forming process, method, or other epistemologically relevant factor. The reliability theme appears both in theories of knowledge and theories of justification.
For the true part I use the philosophy called The Correspondence Theory of Truth.
The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world.
For the beliefs part I use what philosophy calls The Ethics of Belief.
The “ethics of belief” refers to a cluster of questions at the intersection of epistemology, philosophy of mind, psychology, and ethics. The central question in the debate is whether there are norms of some sort governing our habits of belief-formation, belief-maintenance, and belief-relinquishment. Is it ever or always morally wrong (or epistemically irrational, or imprudent) to hold a belief on insufficient evidence? Is it ever or always morally right (or epistemically rational, or prudent) to believe on the basis of sufficient evidence, or to withhold belief in the perceived absence of it? Is it ever or always obligatory to seek out all available epistemic evidence for a belief? Are there some ways of obtaining evidence that are themselves immoral or imprudent?
If a religionist, theist, or fideist states they have different evidence then I would say present it and it must be justified with valid and reliable reason and evidence. As that is the only way to know truth from falsehoods or you just have unjustified belief. Faith is offered as the justification for belief. As seen in the statement I believe in god because I have faith. Translation I am using faith (strong believe without or contrary to evidence) in place of facts. This faith instead of facts is a corner point of in all magical, mystical, supernatural, and superstitious thinking or beliefs. Ones who are science-minded holding to objective methodologies such as the scientific method would be compiled by the ethics of belief to never put faith over facts, in fact never use faith as a justification for belief at all. We must not confuse beliefs, religion is beliefs built from myths devoid of corroborating evidence. Science uses corroborating evidence to establish what is true and that offers something worthy to believe. And nothing is a justified true belief without valid or reliable reason and evidence; just as everything believed must be open to question, leaving nothing above challenge.
In general, I do not care that much what others believe personally until they say it is true, ask my opinion, challenge my evidence, thinking, or beliefs, or use their beliefs to hurt, oppress, or discriminate against others or me. Often, the problem with what is labeled as personal religious belief never stays personal. It becomes a mission to spread (sometimes by force) that same religious belief as an innate factor of the belief itself. Commonly, this seems then to lead to the promotion of dogmatic magical thinking propaganda that tends to motivate beliefs with little problems in hurting, oppressing, or discriminating against others who reject the personal religious belief of the religionist, theist, or fideist. This practice of supposedly personal belief is most commonly forced on to children which shows that there is little personal about it. As for me, I do openly express my atheism, antitheism, antireligionism, and secular humanism but this is not some limiting dogmatism as I strive to be open to learn new things, if warranted and express my thinking or beliefs with justification as much as possible by utilizing valid and reliable reason as well as evidence.
By Damien Marie AtHope