What would you consider to be evidence for God?

[robvalue]

You said the existence of God logically follows from the observations.

Is that not an argument, and a conclusion?

If you were simply noting a logical tautology, then fine. That's of no consequence to anything.

Your observations seem OK at a very intuitive, simplistic level. To assume they are universally true, and that there are no further rules which wouldn't interfere with your conclusion, is wild speculation. But if you're not even making an argument, then I needn't rebut it.

My video and my criticisms apply equally well to Aquinas and all that stuff. All apologetics that doesn't invoke any evidence. It's all wild speculation, as above.