if so, the word faith would have no meaning.

We were created by God.we are in a system created by him.we can't see our hear him the same way mario has know real knowledge of miyamoto. Or gta characters of the rock star creators.it would disrupt free will to have god directly interacting in our universe.

Mario and other playable video game characters have no freewill to speak of. They are just puppets we take control of to interact with fake worlds made out of code.

Didn't God directly interact with our universe LOADS of times in the Bible?

Okay so you will stop spreading this bullshit about an ark now?

I believe Jesus was as real as Socrates. As to his miracles, however, this is not historical because history is confined to what is physically possible. That's why the resurrection cannot be said to be historical because it's physically impossible.

You're referring to Glossolalia - it's gibberish...they firmly believe they are speaking a language because they want desperately to be chosen by god.

http://skepdic.com/glossol.html

There was a recorded happening in which a teenager was hit by a vehicle and pronounced dead on the scene. His brain was on the freaking street. He was taken to the morgue where his mother, with prayer and power, called him back and sure enough he woke up and told his mother that he was sorry. The doctors and nurses ran out the room, in disbelief in what they saw.

Never happened, likely an email chain. You religious people really love spreading these stories.

I was born with a defect in which I could not urinate. It was destroying my body. The doctors had no idea what to do, all the treatments failed.

Clearly not true since the problem was resolved...

Don't believe the rest, sorry. This is bullshit your mother told you about. You have no credibility in this regard. 

Wow, you're sad man. Going as far to insult my family is too far gone. I see you're an atheist. It's no use reasonating with you so how about you leave me be okay? You believe what you want and I will believe what I want. I have nothing to lose if there by some chance isn't a God. The same can't be said for you.  If you want a text version of speaking in tongues, the term would be xenoglossi. Look it up. You have no right to insult what I have seen as truth just because you don't believe it. If I say that I just unscrewd a lightbulb, does that mean it's not truthful even if I did? It's not truth because it isn't recorded and written on some forum or website? Man listen to yourself... you have no faith so I can't expect you to see supernaturally. It's basically like talking to a bird right now. You hear me but you don't understand what I'm saying. Bye. 

These beliefs are formed from historical records...the opposite of faith. 

What you're saying has been addressed and debunked. The rest is called anecdotal fallacy...

At what point did I insult your family? 

Faith is illogical, so correct I don't operate on faith. I operate on evidence.

No the Roman Empire existed and there are many things supporting it 

Which Jesus tomb you mean 

I know three tombs one in jerusalem one in srinagar and one in japan 

And that water split where is the source ?

Its like the story that muhammad split the moon 

I heard from the ark been on the mount ararat but dont know if its true 

I heard many years ago that pseudo scientists found jesus blood on golgatha and that it had 23x or something and the hidden place of the ark of convenant that was bullshit 

And about noah that his grave is in naxcivan 

Moses grave is unknown and there is a theory thats in bandipur in kashmir

Still doing things during my life while believing in God, His Son and The Holy Spirit. What will you be doing when your dead?

You either don't understand what objectivity is or you're projecting your own definition of it to shape the discussion on your terms.

Everything observed is subject to interpretation. Someone has to observe it and interpret it to be able to communicate it, and senses are not quite "not subjective" to be able to make such a claim that if you don't see it as I do, then you're seeing it wrong. If you did not learn this in your philosophy class; knowledge, the information you use to form any idea, is just memories. In terms of certainty, you don't really "know" anything. You just remember how you experienced it. Convention of knowledge just places your experiences in context in the enviornment you're in, for which it's helpful to understand and predict scenarios within that environment, but it doesn't make that knowledge any less "true" or "false". This applies to every kind of knowledge, including scientific knowledge which is ever changing and evolving.

Saying that you can observe objectively is a sign that you might be an intstrumentalist, which, ironically is a philosophy that is based off empiricism; the philosophy of "experiencing". But either way, even if you're an instrumentalist, you can claim all you want that you can observe objectively, but you can't prove it. Paradox much.

With that out of the way; as of now, no. If conventionalism says there is no observable proof of any god, then it can't be "objectively" verifiable.

But that's very positivist of me, though. I like the more open minded and yet secular answer; given we think the universe is infinite (observably) and the human understanding of quantum mechanics (and for which its mechanical wave function is actually being debated for ontological attribution, lol), I think yes. Everything that can happen has already happened somewhere.

A better question, IMO, is:

Is God's inexistence objectively verifiable?

Either ashes in a vase or rotting in the ground, same as you and everyone else.

I do envy the comfort that the religious can take in the idea of an afterlife (and I'm sure I'll want to believe in one near the end) but it's not really a compelling reason for me to have faith in a belief system. Recently, I've come to realize that death is the same state of non-existence I had before birth. Makes it a tad less terrifying, I guess.