It’s true of course that what would actually constitute hard evidence for God’s existence will vary among different folks. But if someone were to announce that God had conveyed to him or her a promise that for an entire month no child would starve to death on planet earth, and, then, for an entire month, no child did in fact starve to death on planet earth, well, that would work for me.
But if we are referring to God, it is not empirically-based at all. God is a philosophical idea churned out of primal reason and thus is an illusion.
Again, in my view, you assert this as though by the fact of asserting it that makes it true. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, you have no capacity whatsoever to demostrate this empiraclly. Any more than Kant, in suggesting that in order to sustain the relevance of his categorical imperative [one rendition of a deontological morality] the existence of God [the transcending font] was imperative. As though this proves the existence of God.
And yet there may well be civilizations on other worlds that conceive of God in ways that have never even occurred to folks here on earth. They may be so much more advanced than we are that their thinking about God may in turn be all that much more sophisticated.
No matter where the Law of Non-Contradiction and logic will apply.
Other civilization and their entities will share the same Universe and the ultimate absolutely perfect has to be same in substance regardless of how its forms are interpreted.
The existence of the universe – multiverse? – is still embedded in profoundly problematic ontological [teleological?] mysteries that only the most foolish of scientists would argue are now within our grasp.
Or are we to believe as some do that it is possible “logically” to explain why something exists rather than nothing? Or why it must be this something and not some other?
Using “the Law of Non-Contradiction and logic”, encompass for us a definitive explanation for why Existence [this Existence] is all around us.
With more sophisticated knowledge we will be able to dig deep to understand the human brain in relation to human existences and its problem. This is the basis for my point;
“Philosophically and wisely, the rational approach to the existential crisis is more effective than to rely on an impossible-to-be-real-God with its negative & evil baggage.”
Okay, “philosophically and wisely” note a particular existential crises that besets the human race [in the is/ought world] and expound on what you construe [here and now] to be the more [or even the most] effective resolution.
In other words, in a world sans God.