is there some other type of evidence besides physical evidence that can be shown as reliable, consistent, and is verifiable by anyone?
no - which is why i said
objective physical evidence - we don't disagree on this point so i'm not sure why you're pushing it. but there is evidence, it's just no objective. although to be fair, you're qualifications for reliable evidence aren't very good considering that sound and the color green can't be verified by "anyone" either - it would have been best to stop at reliable and consistent.
Apply that same logic to unicorns, leprechauns, zeus, etc. When you understand that you will understand why others do not believe in your god.
I already understand why people don't believe in God, what are you talking about?
so says a holybook. Why is it any different if there was a holy unicorn book or a leprechaun-prophet providing an explanation about why unicorns and leprechauns can do what they do?
no, you're not understanding. a holybook does not necessitate that God created the laws of nature - the existence of God as creator of the universe alone necessitates that. If God created the universe, he created its laws and can therefore break them - no book actually says this i don't think - it's just reason. you should be able to see this.
Then the unicorn analogy is correct. The point being made is that God is the ultimate unfalsifiable idea. Belief in unicorns (like god) are beyond falsification. Belief in unicorns is not contingent on the "evidence" because all data can be interpreted within the unicorn/god/leprechaun narrative (E.G., the bible)
Right, God is the ultimate falsifiable idea, so the unicorn analogy is correct in that very limited connection. However, there are reasons to believe God exists and can manipulate the laws of nature, there aren't any reasons to believe unicorns exist.
Propose a falsifiable test for your god if you claim it is falsifiable. Otherwise concede the point that claims about god are unfalsifiable.
It isn't falsifiable with our current technology, but believers don't make it falsifiable - human beings don't have the power to make a belief unfalsifiable or not. We believe and the nature of that belief exists on its own.
unicorns, leprechauns, and greek gods, and the christian god can be fashioned to answer just about any question. That is the two-faced nature of unfalsifiable claims!! They can explain everything but can't be shown as correct.
sure, anything can answer any question, but why would i believe in a unicorn when we've scoured the earth for all animals?
You suffer from a failure of imagination.
Thank you.
unfalsifiable claims are impossible to prove wrong. That is part of the point being made.
right and that doesn't have any effect on the possibility that God exists and that His possible existence rests on different foundations than unicorns.
And maybe it doesn't and maybe asking whether the universe has a cause is a nonsensical question like "what is north of the north pole?"
Sure, maybe it doesn't. Theists
believe in God - the idea that he doesn't exist isn't something we consider impossible. Also, I don't think any scientists would think asking about the cause of the universe is a nonsensical question - big bang theory is evidence of that. Human beings like to know where things came from and the idea that the question is nonsensical is just as detrimental to critical thought as believing blindly in religion.