Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[RoadRunner79]

If I was understanding you correctly, you claimed that X didn't happen (is 100% false, or something similar), because miracles don't happen (don't exist).  Your reasoning seems to be, that any evidence of miracles is not evidence, because miracles cannot happen. They must be lying or mistaken, because of this a priori position, which you don't think that you need to support.    Again, if I did this in with another topic, do you think that it would be accepted here (evolution, Trump corruption, existence of Sweden)?    I've even had people here before, say that they would not believe, even if they did see a miracle 

As to the testimony of the authors of the Bible not being evidence, I would ask again, that you support this claim.  Why not?  Your reasoning thus far seems to be circular.

Re testmoney of authors of the bible:

Worth checking this link for info:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_f...sus_Christ

Particularly
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_f...n_evidence

Which lists the various reasons why we can't really accept anything in the NT as evidence for almost anything, with only very things coming within an acceptable date range of those to be of relevant age to when these writings are dated.

When I say Miracles are 100% false and didn't happen. I mean exactly that. My reasoning is that the "evidence" you have is the documented tales in the bible (see links above as to why that is a bad idea) and NOTHING ELSE. 

If you did this with another topic, you would rightly be ridiculed because those things do exist and if you did research, you would find this. But I might add, not just from one poorly translated 2000+ old book, but from MULTIPLE SOURCES each independent of each other.

I really fail to grasp why you are going around in circles like this, when you know exactly what all of us are asking for yet you fail to provide it. If anybody is being "circular" with their arguments it's very much yourself, because instead of saying "Ok, here is the evidence" you've fallen back on the old theist tactic of "Well you have to prove it as well" whilst also purposefully misrepresenting things people are saying to you, and providing multiple fallacies in the process.

I say Unicorns don't exist, you do. You have to prove it.

Replace the word unicorns with God/miracles/any other shit you like that relates to make believe myths from your bible, and then cough up the evidence. Otherwise, I have nothing more to add to your garbage.

So why would the reasoning be ridiculed in any other instance but not here?   If you are going to be using special pleading, then you need to justify that reasoning.  When you appeal to these other things being true, and the bible being false, then you are just begging the question. 

If you don't have a burden of proof, then you are not making a claim.  if you are not making a claim and not giving reason for it, then I see no reason why I should have to address anything, as you are not really saying anything about reality.   I'm not asking you to give reason (or proof) for anything that you are not claiming.  It was the direct claims here, in the context of this discussion, that I am questioning.   So I assume now, that you are walking back on these claims (and the burden of proof that goes with them), but just don't want to admit it.  

Now if you would like to discuss something in those links you referenced, then feel free.   If you think that what I'm saying is fallacious or circular (or I'm twisting what you are saying), I would ask that you please be more specific, so I can address it.  If I'm misunderstanding something you said, then clarify it.  It's not difficult to have a civil discussion.   However if you are making claims, then you should expect me to ask for the evidence and reasons behind your claims.

---

I might also add, that if you are not making a claim, that I don't believe that you can use that as a premise to reject the evidence.

---

A note on negative claims from Wikipedia.   While "you can't prove a negative" may be a common saying, I would highlight here, where it is called pseudo-logic.

Proving a negative
A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something.[10] Saying "You cannot prove a negative" has been called pseudologic because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics including Arrow's impossibility theorem. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, it has been said whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.
A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument are typical methods to fulfill the burden of proof for a negative claim