Q about arguments for God's existence.

[Cato]

No that's not how observations work in science. You don't have to physically observe something for its effects to be tested and measured, and not all observations have to be made visually; in fact hardly any scientific observation is visual.

But that's what you require of God, seems you are setting a double standard.

GC

No, that's not what is required; however, you must be able to demonstrate the existence of God, seen or unseen.

You claim there was a global flood, we can demonstrate why this never happened.

You claim creation in accordance with Genesis, this can be shown to be demonstrably false.

You claim the existence of heaven and hell, no evidence exists for such places.
(I am using 'You' here loosely as in Christians in general, not necessarily 'You' in particular)

We can't see electrons, but we can demonstrate their existence. The associated theories provide great explanatory power for observed phenomena. The theories give us a predictive power that allows our manipulation of electrons to do our bidding.

The idea of God cannot be demonstrated, creates more questions than it is supposed to answer, and has zero predictive capability. It explains absolutely nothing. To borrow from Laplace, but applied more generally: the idea of God serves no useful purpose.

Believe what you will, but none of us have to take it seriously.