"God doesn't Exist"- Claim or Conclusion

[Mister Agenda]

…Your signature is an "argument" for the existence of God, not "evidence" for its existence.  If you change out "God" for "An intelligent, living universe", that's all it takes to make it "evidence" for a living, intelligent universe.  That makes it an argument, not evidence.

At the risk of bickering over semantics, all I see in my signature line is a list of common observations. I do not see how these are any different from more specific observations like:

I have a fever.
I’m vomiting.
And I have a sore throat.

That’s the evidence. Of what is it evidence? I apply inductive reasoning to what is evident and conclude that most likely I have the flu. Similarly, the theologian sees some very general observations about the world and by applying reason reaches the conclusion that something remarkably similar to what one would expect of a Supreme Being exists. These are as follows:

1) Some things change.
2) Only things that actually exist can cause change.
3) Some things that do not exist now could potentially exist later.
4) Some things that do exist now could potentially cease to exist later.
5) The actions of unconscious things produce regular results.

So rather than simply argue over the meaning of words perhaps it would be more fruitful for you to state you objections with the above. Do you disagree with any of those observations?

Their main problem is that they don't point at a deity, so what are you on about?

If there were a deity, things would be thus-and-so
Things are thus-and-so
Therefore, there is a deity.

If P, then Q.
Q, therefore P.

This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Your observations are necessarily consequents, and you can reason backwards from them to any origin story that doesn't contradict them. There are many possible 'Ps'.