More atheists should be agnostics

I hope this debate won't be a mincing of the words objective and subjective as if they were some safe path to jump onto to throw the entire argument into vagueness. You made several claims that something can't be proven without proving those very same claims yourself. As far as I see it you must expand on the following: -- "due to the true subjective nature of the idea of God" If God exists, then he is not limited to the 'subjective' beliefs of those on Earth. If I were to think of you 'subjectively' as the flying Spaghetti Monster himself, it would not suddenly make it true that you are. Without the presence of external evidence, like noodlely appendages and tomato sauce compromising the physical matter of you; I would just be a crazy person to claim such a thing. If God exists, as described by the Bible, he is immaterial. So we cannot physical find God, but that just means I'd be looking in the wrong place, and you would call me illogical for searching for a tangible immaterial God. Thought likewise, I physically cannot locate who made the sweater I'm wearing right now. I don't even know their name, but I do know they must exist because there is physical evidence of a sweater. It is likewise with God and everything you see around you compromising this lovely planet we call Earth. -- "can always be shifted" I think what you call shifted is one of two things. It is either you yourself shifting the goal posts in the face of potential evidence or a misunderstand of the immense nature of God. I really need more to go off of here but there are several problems in your thinking here. If I am attempting to prove a method for gasoline powered transport exists and I reason that the simplest method for this would be something that operated with pressure and combustion; then in essence I've just described the generic idea of a car and my argument focused on the aspect of an engine. You would not say that it is impossible that a car exists because I only described the engine. What I have done in my reasoning is point towards an aspect of the greater whole. If you've read the Greeks who weren't even Christian you can find tons of quotes along this line of reasoning. They all found some smaller axiom of human nature or the physical world, that when brought to it's conclusion logically pointed to a "greater whole" which in their case they specifically attribute to the generic idea of a Creator. So are even pagans wrong? There is a vast majority of independent isolated cases from different nationalities, times, and varying intellectual abilities that have all come to find an aspect or many aspects of axiomatic or observable methods that all point to at least a generic deity. In science we would call this a new law due to it's method of investigation and basically comparable results. When attacking religion we apparently find this presumptuous and unverifiable; which when put into these terms I think sets the framework for showing how it is the attacking party moving the goalposts (the agnostic); not the philosopher or priest. -- "we can never have enough evidence to prove or disapprove the existence of God" This is it's own wormhole but what is your evidence for this statement? You end with alluding to some of the more outrageous claims. And while those are easily dismissed based on several principles, I don't think your actual argument is going to be based on them.