Being rational

"argumentative evidence" that's not evidence neither of those videos provided repeatable, peer reviewable, testable evidence that the proposition "a god that can create universes - created our universe" Logic only goes so far. It can't be used to prove everything, we didn't get knowledge of the dinosaurs from pure logic, it was finding physical evidence. If something manifests in our reality it should detectable by us. Theists love using these bs ways to prove their god yet once you take a peek in their church you see none of those same proofs.

"argumentative evidence"

"that's not evidence" I would say it could be. In a court case you get direct and indirect evidence. Direct evidence is eye witness testimony. Indirect evidence is other things like DNA evidence, fingerprints etc But just finding fingerprints is not going to be as strong as putting it in an argument form to explain why the fingerprints prove something. There is lots of evidence for a creator and putting it in an argument form makes the evidence even stronger. "neither of those videos provided repeatable, peer reviewable, testable evidence that the proposition "a god that can create universes - created our universe"" Does not have to. Not everything we know comes from repeatable, peer reviewable, testable evidence. For example we know you exist. Where are all the peer reviewable papers of your existence. If someone did not want to believe you exist then they would claim you are just a computer program writing comments to waste peoples' time. "Logic only goes so far. It can't be used to prove everything, we didn't get knowledge of the dinosaurs from pure logic, it was finding physical evidence." Without logic and philosophy the evidence would mean nothing. That is why a PhD stand for a Doctor of Philosophy. Without logic and philosophy you cannot do science. Science comes from the lattin word scientia which simply means knowledge. That is why you get things like Library science, a Political science and so forth. "If something manifests in our reality it should detectable by us." Yeah, but just like we cannot see a black hole, but only see the effect the black hole has on other objects. The same and even more can be seen with God. God has an effect on things just like black holes have an effect on things, but God does not just stay away from His creation. He multiple times come to His creation. I can show you lots of evidence for that. "Theists love using these bs ways to prove their god yet once you take a peek in their church you see none of those same proofs." Your huge biases seem to blind you so that you do not see the clear evidence staring you in the face. Just like flat earthers are blinded by their huge biases and thus cannot see the evidence staring them in the face. They would probably say the same kind of thing you say, but just in regard to people that try and provide evidence for a round earth.

Sorry for the late response, I found this forum randomly and kind of forgot about it.

[I would say it could be. In a court case you get direct and indirect evidence. Direct evidence is eye witness testimony. Indirect evidence is other things like DNA evidence, fingerprints etc]

You don't have anything close to direct eye witness testimony, DNA evidence or fingerprints to the scale of a universe-creating-god.

[Does not have to. Not everything we know comes from repeatable, peer reviewable, testable evidence. For example we know you exist. Where are all the peer reviewable papers of your existence. If someone did not want to believe you exist then they would claim you are just a computer program writing comments to waste peoples' time.]

Certain specific claims require a certain specific evidence. If you are claiming something manifests in our reality the evidence needs to match the claim. But the amount of evidence needed to prove EVERY claim of your religion is massive. I'd argue the burden is higher than the burden of most if not all established scientific theories. There are claims that go against things we know in reality like talking snakes, men walking on water, heaven, hell, etc. This is not just something you can wave away with ancient multi-translated unreliable texts that have anecdotal evidences at best(which aren't even first hand accounts).

"If something manifests in our reality it should detectable by us."

[Yeah, but just like we cannot see a black hole, but only see the effect the black hole has on other objects. The same and even more can be seen with God. God has an effect on things just like black holes have an effect on things, but God does not just stay away from His creation. He multiple times come to His creation. I can show you lots of evidence for that.]

We have pictures of black holes. We have scientific data pointing to their effect on reality. You said you can show evidence, well, show me your best evidence then.

"Theists love using these bs ways to prove their god yet once you take a peek in their church you see none of those same proofs."

[Your huge biases seem to blind you so that you do not see the clear evidence staring you in the face. Just like flat earthers are blinded by their huge biases and thus cannot see the evidence staring them in the face. They would probably say the same kind of thing you say, but just in regard to people that try and provide evidence for a round earth.]

Is that maybe a projection? I do have biases as everyone does but I do try to keep them at bay. You didn't really respond to the point I made in your own quotations as well, it was about how indoctrination works and this philosophical evidence you speak of. How many times do you think they're using any sort of evidence in the childhood indoctrination going on in church? I am curious what your evidence would be or what you think constitutes the best evidence.