There's plenty of it.
None of what I've seen is evidence for deities. It is evidence of people believing in deities, which isn't even remotely the same thing. I already knew there was plenty of that, so I didn't ask for it.
That is not the same as saying that others haven't come up with arguments they think discounts it.
Naturally.
Since I've never been convinced by their counter-arguments, I'm sure it falls in the category of disputed territory.
Obviously.
Then, of course, there's my personal experience. I cannot transmit that to you at the same level that I feel it, but I can tell you.
Feel free to do so. I am curious.
You can do with all of this what you will.
Well, what I asked for - if you wanted to take a shot at it - was an attempt to persuade me that there is plenty (or any) evidence for the existence of a deity. Surely you don't think the above post qualifies? If you think your experience might be persuasive, go ahead with it. I'm curious in any event.
Some have had their eyes blinded and it's not given to them to see on my time schedule.
Yeah, but you never know, now do you?
Historic evidence is legitimate evidence.
For example, you really have only a few choices regarding the apostles' testimony regarding the resurrection. They were either relaying the truth (T) of what they had seen or they were not relaying the truth (NT) of what they had seen. Either of those categories could have been knowingly (K) or unknowingly. (UK)
We have, then: (1)TK, (2) TUK, (3)NTK, (4) NTUK.
This is exactly what we have regarding any recorded eyewitness account of anything in history.
In the case of the apostles, we can rule out #3, I think, because of the terrible demise that each of them encountered over a period of time.
The worst analysis that can be made, then, is that, at a minimum, they thought they saw something extraordinary.