Let me rephrase: Of course there is evidence for the existence of God but you refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn't constitute an absolute, incontrovertible and unassailable proof of the existence of God.
You can say the same of science. No scientific theory has ever been proven. People are still devising experiments regarding Einstein's theories. Each experiment not showing a divergent result adds to the evidence making a divergent result less likely to be observed but cannot prove that a divergent result will not be observed. Sir Issac can attest to that.
Maybe you should brush up on the nature of evidence. Subjective experience alone is not an example of evidence. What someone happens to believe is not evidence. What it tells us in this or that holy book is not evidence. The existence of a complex universe is evidence for the existence of a complex universe, it does not say anything about creation by magic. As there are many possibilities, assuming that a Creator exists is not supported by the available information. The fact is, we do not know what the ultimate nature of the universe is, part of a larger system, fluctuation, branes, etc, etc. It is the theist who claims to know.
Nice deflection but it doesn't address what I said. I said nothing of faith, a holy book, or magic. And again, you're ignoring evidence because it's not a dispositive proof.
There was no deflection, I outlined what some folk consider to be evidence, with a short summary for why it actually isn't evidence for the existence of a God or gods. You say that I am ignoring evidence without actually providing examples of your evidence, or a rational argument to support your claim.
