To say, "for some God exists and [for] others God doesn't exist" appears to just be a confused way of writing that 'Some people believe in the existence of God and some don't'.
Ask yourself why you have to rationalize it like that?
I'll tell you. For you it is more likely that God does not exist. But you're not entirely closed to the idea of God.
You want confirmation in a way that convinces you that God exists.
But even if God was to show that He existed, you may well not see it because it doesn't match your expectation, which is routed to what it is you require to accept, or believe that God exists.
People who believe in God, generally see little evidences within the fabric of their perception, which if God existed, by definition, that would be a way to comprehend the existence of God (by definition).
It's all about your position on the matter.
If God does exist, then you are within God, and God is within you. If you look outside of yourself for God, then you may develop a false conception of what God as you would be looking for something separate to yourself, or something which is unobservable by human sense perception.
The question that the atheism/theism controversy is addressing isn't whether or not some people believe in the existence of God. I think that virtually all atheists and theists agree that many people do have subjective belief in the existence of God.
The dispute is about whether the supposed object of theistic belief has objective existence.
Well, what are the claims that are made about God?
What is the most comprehnsive sources of information about God?
Given God's definition, what would need to be observed in order to justify the idea that God exists.
Monotheists believe that God's existence is more fundamental than the existence of anything else. In fact, God is typically believed to be the creator/source of the rest of reality, including man.
I don't see how that kind of belief in the ontological priority of God is consistent with the atheistic idea that God is a phantasm of the human imagination, a creation of man.
Bottom line: Jan's position, and your defense of it, seem to me to dodge the question.
Ultimately, you have to bring in man's expression of belief in God, by ascribing titles, such as monotheism, judeo-christian, and others. It is as though you assume that without institutes like these there would be no idea of God. That is a false assumption.
Why aren't you more concerned with where this concept of God originated? Apart from the giant conspiracy theories abound, ie, God was invented to explain thunder, or God was invented to control masses, ideas which cannot be verified, where is the study of this.
The scriptures, whether you want to accept it or not, are very sophisticated, and very profound. And some of these scripture were written thousands of years ago. It is hardly likely that they evolved with man. But you're entitled to think they. So in this way you have already concluded that God does not exist.
In my opinion. Belief or non belief in God, is a fundamental thing, not something we come to acquire. But over the course of our existence we can come to alter our beliefs through experiential knowledge, and informational knowledge (which be ultimately be strengthened by good intelligence and of course experience.
A good question to ask ourselves is: What do we want this experience of life to be?
jan.