I was hoping to avoid cutting and pasting but if that is easier...
I would dispute the notion that you only use objective evidence.
- First I would say that you (everyone) frequently use subjective preference (left or right hand)
- Second I would say that you often use practical assumptions (ignore the possibility of incidental calamities)
- Finally I also claim that you rely on unquestioned but commonly held mythic ideas (free will, individual human rights, the attainability of objectivity, the absolute supremacy of rational truth)
I think this is a valid discussion here although not fully focused on the OP. I could break this big claim of mine into a separate thread.
To answer your question...I believe in a God as an expression of an objective psychological reality. My belief is wrapped in a story of how I was able to overcome a depression and understand the value of my life through a dialog/interaction with God. So the subjective evidence in my life is enough for my belief. However, I do not claim that this should be enough for anyone else's belief. I could make a case based on objective information that a belief in God can be efficacious but even then I would not say that it is an entirely necessary, exclusive or superior form of belief for others. Nature is much more dynamic than any "one way" consciously rational approach can fully encompass.
Also...
I recommend to you to read Chapter 29 and 30 of Douglas Hofstadter's Metamagical Themas. He makes the connection between rationality and moral optimization being at cross purposes. He uses the Prisoner's dilemma as a context for realizing this and even comes up with a lottery, funded by the Scientific American, to try and explore this conundrum.
Our moral decisions are often made in the context of how others will choose to make their moral decisions. I am coming into a realization here that this may also be a model for how we approach faith when there is a personal payoff to be had in some remote future. We are presented with a dichotomy between rational action and moral choice and to some extent we have God or some Way as our other prisoner to reckon with.
Eliminating the primacy of the future payoff would then be a last step in the development of one's faith. This leaves one in a context of having to negotiate one's fragile, subjective truths in a world where there is little guarantee that those truths will be considered. The strength it takes to stand up and go forward through the day requires a lot of faith without a lot of reward other than an appreciation of the fruitful bounty of the moment it seems.
Wikipedia treatments...
Chapter 29
Prisoner's dilemma - Wikipedia
Chapter 30
Superrationality - Wikipedia