Relating to God, there is no evidence of actuality, and lots of evidence of the abstract - the beliefs do exist, and some of the believers really do believe; not just say they do. Here I can argue only against claimed proofs of the existence of a god, or of supernatural events which believers claimed happened, but I know from what I have learned there is no proof these things happened, or they have proved to be false (as in the case of the Ark, which has definitely been proved in many ways to be totally false).<quoted text>HARDLY BOOOOTS.
We are arguing preponderance of evidence of actuality vs. abstract(which has no ground in actuality). Therefore the result of abstract claims(actions) has to show bearing as actual resulting evidence to equate as evidence of argument. Otherwise there is no argument, nor contest for argument.
I know also that no miracles have ever been scientifically proved to occur, and all claims of miracles, even those claimed to be witnessed by more than one person are very suspect as to being anything more than a natural phenomena or a fake or a myth.