Then also both parties in an argument must concur on the concept of the object being disputed in regard to its existence in objective reality.

What is the concept of God concurred on by atheists and theist, Whose existence is being disputed?

Ultimately, theists claim that God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

What about atheists, what is your concept of God Who to you does not exist?

Logically, since theists are the ones claiming God exists, they are the ones to define what is the concept of God Who to them does exist.

And first and foremost for theists God is the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning; if God is not first and foremost in concept the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning, then theists who are rational and experienced with thinking on facts and logic, theists will tell you that any God not in concept the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning, that is not the God Who for them exists in objective reality.

Now, at this point atheists can bring in the principle of burden of proof binding theists, because theists make the claim; and atheists will insist on evidence for God.

Do theists have evidence for God existing?

Yes, theists have evidence for the existence of God in concept as the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

And the evidence is the existence itself of the universe and of everything with a beginning, starting with the nose in our face.

So, at this point, theists can invite atheists to go with theists to search for all instances of things with a beginning, starting of course with the universe itself, which science tells us has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, and also everything in the universe has a beginning, as also the whole universe itself has a beginning.

You will notice, atheists, that you are always insisting on trivializing the concept of God, with ridiculous analogies like flying spaghetti monster, etc.

If you want to insist that God in concept is an invalid concept, then show how this concept of God, first and foremost God is the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning, that concept is an invalid concept, and how it is invalid, without resorting to ridiculous analogies to God.

So, I said that the principle of burden of proof must be collated with the principle that evidence is to be specified in regard to the time frame and locality frame where evidence is delimited.

Do you now see that theists do have proof in term of evidence which evidence is delimited in regard to the time frame and the locality frame, namely, there is evidence of God existing in the time frame and locality frame of the whole span history of the universe (13.8 billion years), and in regard to everything in the universe which everything in the universe has a beginning in time and in space; indeed the universe had its beginning with the beginning of time and space themselves: they started together, the universe and the time and the space it is delimited to, from since their beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

Which universe? The one where man is existing in and a part of.

Is that circular proof of God existing?

For example, we are going to prove the existence of a flying spaghetti monster, and I am the proponent of the existence of a flying spaghetti in objective reality, so I ask my opponents to first we together work to concur on the concept of the flying spaghetti monster; when we have come to concurrence on the concept of the flying spaghetti monster, then we all I the proponent and you my opponents all proceed to look for a flying spaghetti monster in objective reality, using our concurred on concept of the flying spaghetti monster as our guide in the search.

Is that a circular argument to come to the proof of the existence of the flying spaghetti monster?

So also with God, proponents of God existing and opponents must first work together to concur on the concept of God, then both proponents and opponents will go forth in objective reality to search for God existing in objective reality, using the concurred on concept of God as the guide for the search.

Is that a circular argument or procedure for proving the existence of God?

Here I go: Asking atheists, what do you think about my concept of God, namely, God in concept is the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning; do you accept for the purpose of argument this concept of God? If not what or how would you like to change it, so that I would see if I could accept your modified concept of my concept of God: for when we have reached concurrence on the concept of God, then we will both I the proponent and you atheists the opponent proceed to search for God existing in objective reality, using for our guide in the search, our concurred on concept of God?

You understand what "said to have" means, right? If I name one, you're not going to say it doesn't count unless the miracle actually happened?

Okay, name one.

Yes we know miracle workers do not exist.

That is logically irrelevant to the question of whether any real person was ever said to have worked miracles.

Yes we know miracle workers do not exist. Well some of us do anyway.

How are they evidence that Jesus actually existed?

His existence is a possible explanation for their existence. That is what I take evidence to be: If a hypothesis is a possible explanation for some observed fact, then the fact is evidence for that hypothesis.

Historical narratives don't contain dialog

I've read some that do. I even wrote a few myself when I was a newspaper reporter.

Real people don't perform miracle and these kinds of stories weren't written about real people.

Oh? So, whenever we read a narrative about a person who performs a miracle, we know that that person never really existed? I'd be mighty careful with that logic, if I were you.