Someone asked me this question on the comments to the video about Evolution, and hence my answer was:
Yes, I do have, but you see where the problem is, is not whether there is evidence, but it is in the interpretation of the evidence, and what I consider verifiable, you might consider not so, and hence, the backdrop of the worldview on both sides will keep this dichotomy in place!
So, for example, I will tell you one very critical evidence for God is the existence of a soul. A soul is a non material aspect of the human creation, is a direct intervention from outside this world with the birth of every human being, and is within every human being, so every one of us can verify it. If there is a soul, there is God.
Now, before you start responding to me my naturalistic-worldview friend, let me tell you how our varied world-views will cause our interpretations of the observations to diverge, while both of us are looking at the same evidence, so HYG.
Observations: A human being has genuine intellect, consciousness, emotions, and free will.
Observation: the reproduction of any of the above though materialistic processes or components is not possible (yet).
Naturalistic interpretation of the observations:
Yes we cannot explain it but it is because we do not understand science of consciousness good enough and one day we will!!
Theistic response:
The origin of those phenomena is the existence of a soul, that has attributes of consciousness, spawning free will, and combined with the material sensory abilities of the body and computing power of the brain produces human intellect!
The soul is created by God with every human birth.
Since the soul is immaterial, it’s not possible to detect it using experimental laboratory measurement, yet the observations of billions of humans and the effects of the soul are obvious, observable, and reproducible with every living human being.
The “Theory” (Capital T) here is that the soul is the immaterial aspect of humanity and that all four phenomena are observable manifestations of its attributes.
Naturalistic response:
Intellect: it is a computation beyond our current capacity.
Consciousness: it is a manifestation of the complexity of the wet computer which is the brain. It might be an emergent phenomenon which we cannot emulate because we cannot (yet) build a machine as sophisticated and as hyperconnected as the brain.
Emotions: are chemical reactions in response to external stimulus that are interpreted by the brain as (illusions of) emotions.
Free will: Is an illusion. There is no free will.
CONCLUSION:
As you can see, naturalistic science will dismiss the supernatural aspect of the soul because it’s structure is built by naturalists who dismiss anything outside the boundaries of measurable nature.
It is a very clear example of systemic bias.
Now, I can be forgiving with “science” if it just says: well, a soul is outside my scope, so I will refrain from commenting on this field. The matter of the soul is subject to proof by direct individual observation, so I will acknowledge it even if I cannot examine it.
But science does not do that.
And worse is that naturalists do not only force science to judge what it outside its scope in the first place, but even build an epistemology that will make no other source of knowledge available but the obliterated science that they have defined.
It leaves humans who are infused with this epistemology doomed to go to theories (with a small t) like evolution, and call them Theories (with a capital T) to have any hope of an explanation for life!
Now, you stand at the problem that also evolution does not explain consciousness of humans or even of animals!
Yet, the naturalist will say: we will know in time. I will not believe in God just because I don’t know, and he will call that “God if the Gaps”!! Alas!
Naturalistic thinking and an epistemology confined in the boundaries of experimental science is essentially the death of reason, and a dead end for the connection between humanity and its true self.
Finding Truth