First of all, every religions says that they are the only religion with evidence, so why should I believe Christianity over, say, Buddhism? Also, the Bible is not evidence, because you would have to prove that the Bible has some sort of authority. If you say its authority is from God, then you have to prove God exists, but then you can't use the Bible has prove of God's existence. It becomes circular argument that cannot be answered. Then we have Jesus' tomb with has not evidence that it even exists and finally, my existence is not prove that God exists, as there are many way I could exist that does not require a Creator.

I have nothing against anyone's personal experience. If they have experience some sort of spiritual awakening, good for them, however, this is still not evidence.

"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.