That will help outline what constitutes evidence for or against it.

Is to define god in ineffable terms so that god can't be proven or dis-proven.

for example: https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218298357

A dinosaur skeleton was discovered and the legend of dragons was born. As we progressed thru history, science proved evolution, and we now know the origin of species to one degree or another. Very few people believe that dragons as presented in mythology are real. Same with omnipotent deities. Ancient man saw events he could not explain and attributed them to "Gods". As we matured as a species we learned the truth about our world and Bronze-age mythology has fallen by the wayside.

I asked much the same questions some time ago.

You have been asked that question repeatedly many times way before you asked those questions.

If you need a definition for evidence, then either you don't have the knowledge to participate in the conversation, or you are acting in bad faith.

If you do not know the difference between and a claim of proof, you should not participate in the conversation, or....etc.

I'm not asking for a definition of claim or evidence like you are, I'm asking you about what you believe exists.

That's your specialty.

what is your specialty?

you answered for MM with an incomplete sentence.

Well done.

No?

Interesting.

I really don't have a particular specialty when it comes to having opinions and sharing them. Many things interest me, but language is one of those things, so I do try to manage it as well as I can. From your title, it's clear that such things are not important to you. That's OK, though. We can usually figure out what it is you're trying so hard to say.

Descartes proved with logic that God exists but the Catholic Church rejected it because logic and proof negate the need for faith.

just because he can conceive of it, doesn't mean it exists.

Kurt Goedel made a proof of God, very similar to the one of Descartes: Both came to the conclusion that if a highest good is possible, then it must exist.

However, it always depends on whether the assumptions can be found in the real world. Goedel's assumptions were plainly unrealistic, thus rendering his proof no more than a mathematical exercise.

Descartes imagines God as unchanging and static (omnipotent, omniscient...), and from this he somehow deduces that God must exist. But think of all the things that exist and all the things that do not exist and will lnever exist? What is more in line with being static and unchanging? Existence or non-existence?

wonderful logic, worthy of Descartes.

Some people claim to have seen, spoken to, or entered mystical union with God. It's worth as much or as little as any other uncorroborated witness testimony.

if we are talking GOD with omnipotence, omniscience, etc...then you'd need some acts that very clearly break the laws of physics.

Maybe reanimate in perfect form everyone who has ever lived instantaneously. Or cause the Earth to instantly change orbit and yet maintain things as they are. Swing it out into the space between galaxies but the Sky is still blue and heat is still raining down.

If we are talking something/someone of a lesser sort, then we are really just talking about a very smart, very powerful creature but not GOD who has little g god-like powers.

No god is there.

Or there.

Or over there.

Or under this.

Or behind that.

Nowhere.

No god is there.
There is no god.

That's not how science works.

There is no evidence that a sack of rice just fell over in China. Does that mean, we can deduce that NO sack of rice did just fall over in China?

And that's a little more evidence against, every time.

or at least posit what the evidence should be.
That is how science works.

Those advocating for the Ether, or N-Rays or Cold Fusion were the ones that needed to provide proof.