Show us reproducible evidence of this god, and then show us reproducible evidence that this god would not allow us to perceive the universe as it does, or as it is.
Inductively, we can argue that the existence of god is unlikely. Deductively, we cannot argue that god does not exist. By asking for evidence supporting god's existence begs the inductive argument.
Deductively, we also cannot argue that god does exist. If flat earthers want to try and pretend their position is empirical, they can't possibly suggest the existence of a god that cannot be verified by observation.
The problem with the deductive argument is that the original formulation which is:
1.If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2.If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3.If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4.If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5.Evil exists.
6.If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7.Therefore, God doesn’t exist. (source:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/)
Can be refuted using Plantigna's free will defense. When attempting to argue using a universal quantifier, i.e., all of something, the refutation isn't to prove where every case fails, you only need to prove that one case fails. Deductively, we can argue that god does not exist but it need only be proven wrong in one case.
Here's one of the deductive arguments for the existence of god (St. Anslem of Canterbury):
1.God is the greatest possible being (nothing greater can be conceived)
2.If God exists in the mind alone (only as an idea), then a greater being could be imagined to exist both in the mind and in reality
3.This being would then be greater than God
4.Thus God cannot exist only as an idea in the mind
5.Therefore, God exists both in the mind (as an idea) and in reality.
The fault with this argument is that it makes an a priori assumption regarding the existence of a being ahead of the imagining of the same being. It can also be faulted using a reductio ad absurdum; we can deduce the existence of anything using the same argument. Immanuel Kant also argued against this formulation based on a fault with the third premise; does the instantiation of a idea by default make it greater (or have greater value) than the idea itself?
Either way, deductively, I agree that we cannot find a valid and sound argument that proves or disproves the existence of god.
Inductively, however, we can effectively argue against the existence of god to a point where it is very unlikely that god exists.
The FE crowd isn't big on deductive or inductive argumentation, in my opinion.
I would, in all fairness, ask what sort of observation you would accept as proof or support that god exists. I do see Mikey's point, you are setting the bar rather high.