"If you want, we can shift the conversation to the real hinge: what counts as justified belief once empirical evidence runs out. That’s the actual point of divergence, not God, not necessary beings, and not metaphysical endpoints."

"If you want, we can shift the conversation to the real hinge: whether empirical evidence is the only kind of justification that can ever count, or whether different kinds of questions call for different kinds of reasoning. That’s the actual point where our views diverge."

"If you want, we can shift the conversation to the real hinge: what counts as an existence‑claim versus what counts as a conceptual analysis, because that’s where the wires have been crossing."

All three of these quotes are from the last paragraph of three different posts you made. It is kind of strange that you use the phrase, "If you want, we can shift the conversation to the real hinge:" in all three of them. If I was paranoid, I would say that something fishy was going on, but I'm not paranoid, so let's get down to the nitty gritty.

This whole thread started with me asking for proof of a God. No one has been able to offer me any, and so my stance has not changed. I have no desire to go beyond evidence based claims because, for me, there is no reason to. Empirical claims are good enough for me.

Claims about what exists need evidence. Pointing out that methodological standards aren’t themselves empirically proven doesn’t put speculative metaphysics on equal footing with evidence-based claims. Yes, everyone has background assumptions, but using assumptions to limit belief isn’t the same as using them to add new entities. Framing this as two equally valid “approaches” also blurs an important distinction: stopping belief where evidence runs out isn’t equivalent to extending belief beyond it. The burden still sits with whoever is claiming something exists beyond the evidence.

For me, the only way to answer a question is through empirical evidence (except for questions on opinions and emotions). You can try and persuade me otherwise, but the problem is, you're going to need empirical evidence to convince me of any claim that empirical evidence is not the only kind of justification that can ever count.

My whole belief system revolves around empirical evidence. I will believe anything, if the evidence is there, however without evidence, it's just guessing. This is what makes me an atheist, I need evidence of a God to believe in one. If you don't need empirical evidence to believe in God, more power to you, I have nothing against that, just don't expect me to think the same way.

You’re still sliding from “what explanation could be” to *“what explanation must be.” I’m not claiming the universe is metaphysically fundamental, I’m saying we don’t have evidence that anything else exists. That’s not a stance about what explanation owes us; it’s a stance about what we’re justified in believing.

Yes, treating the universe’s beginning as a stopping point is a choice, but it’s a methodological one grounded in evidence, not a claim about the ultimate nature of reality. You’re asking for justification to go beyond what we can support, and until there’s evidence for that, stopping isn’t arbitrary, it’s responsible.

You keep framing this as “where explanation ends,” but that’s not what I’m saying. Explanation may or may not go further, we just don’t know. And “we don’t know” isn’t a failure of explanation, it’s an honest limit. What you’re proposing goes past that limit and then asks me to justify not following you.

So the disagreement isn’t really about endpoints at all. It’s about whether speculation beyond the evidence counts as explanation. I’m saying it doesn’t, at least not as proof of anything existing beyond the universe.