That's still an assertion about the conclusion affecting the journey, meaning it's still from the conclusion! Every argument for God is circular. Without asser

That's still an assertion about the conclusion affecting the journey, meaning it's still from the conclusion! Every argument for God is circular. Without assertion for the conclusion, there is no assertion, and therefore no argument. I'm not telling you whether or not that conclusion is correct. I'm talking about the reasoning itself. If you choose to believe that God is affecting your life, then you are still applying circular logic. You are applying faith in God (an assertion of the conclusion) to your perception of life. It's no more than a semantic obfuscation: Putting it your way phrases it semantically as, "God is, in effect of my experience." Putting it in formal language, we can say equivalently, "Given God is, my experience is affected thusly." What I have done is no different from factoring out a variable or scalar in a mathematical equation. "God = 1". The effect of identity to your life experience is "God * life_experience = life_experience". If God were anything other than the unit multiplied, then the effects of God would be trivially provable, and we would therefore know the nature of God by evidence, and it wouldn't be God anymore.