Let me start this comment of by sharing that I don't think we disagree on much, but I do enjoy the conversation and that's why I'm replying and discussing my point of view in opposition to yours despite the fact that I think the differences are subtle at best.
When it comes to claims of whether God is real, I keep in mind that approximately 95% of the humans on planet earth have some form of spiritual belief. I also want evidence and refuse to believe without it, as you do, however I am not so quick to dismiss the opinion of 95% of the human species. Some might consider this evidence of a kind however I'm not going that far.
Considering that evidence would be a logical fallacy. What people believe doesn't have to have a direct correlation with what's true. There was a time when 95% of the people believed the Earth was flat. If you don't think it's evidence of something, why at all bring that up?
Btw, I think this number is shrinking and I would be surprised if it was really 95%, but I haven't checked as I'm not sure if it's at all relevant.
Reports of direct personal experiences of mystical experiences can be found throughout human history through to the modern day.
There are also personal reports of people hearing voices in their heads but we classify those as mental disorders most of the time. In the end, none of those are really verifiable and when people have used their personal spiritual experiences to make predictions about the world, they have turned out to be wrong.
Most religions claim that in the past people have had collective spiritual experiences that they could have verified together, but those don't seep to happen in modern times. In a way, all the miracles disappeared with the invention of the camera.
Of course science wants repeatable experiments and empirical evidence, however it could be one of those Carl Sagan 'flatland' type problems. How does a 2D being from flatland describe a 3D being when their only experience is 2D?
It depends. If the 2D reality interacts with the third unnoticeable dimension in some way be it subtly, than should be some measurable consequences of that interaction. Like the "2D sheet" vibrating ever so slightly or whatever. If there is interaction, some effects should be measurable in some way and the scientiests in the 2D world might someday discover a way to measure, explain and prove the existence of an unseen third dimension.
But if the 2D reality does not interact with anything occupying the third dimension in any way, there might never be evidence. The thing is, would postulating a third dimension would be reasonable at all as it will be an unfalsifiable claim.
But if you talk about personal experience as something that could possibly be attributed to a god of some sort, then the latter would certainly not be the case as those experiences would have to have been caused by something that can interact with the reality they are in.
I hope I managed to express this contradiction clearly.
My suggestion is for science to look to a chemical produced by the human brain and found throughout nature called 5-MeO-DMT which is reported with extremely high frequency to cause people to experience these mystical states with astounding reliability.
It's not just that, they have also used electrical fields to stimulate the brain to have similar experiences.
If there is a chemical technology that can be studied to examine the human belief in god then sceinctist who wish to finally dismiss or confirm this endless debate should be looking here.
I'm not sure that will be enough to refute the claim as many theists and deists tend to seek refuge for their belief in unfalsifiable claims. The thing is (and I think you probably agree) we should require evidence before we start making our minds up.
The reason I oppose faith is the fact that it goes against the exact thing you are advocating for here - being open to the possibility of being disproven and a belief to turn out to be incorrect.
I'm not saying the existence of god can be refuted with 100% certainty, but I am saying that believing in a god is unreasonable as it is unreasonable to believe in ferries, leprechauns, unicorns, magic and the flying spaghetti monster.
RE: The Tao of Paradox | Part 1: The Only Thing I Know For Sure