Why not deism?

[EgoDeath]

I'm not sure about this. If you're limiting the possible uses of evidence only to demonstrate natural things, then you're begging the question. The arguments for a prime mover et al. start with objective, verifiable phenomena as premises, but the conclusion is not.

If something is natural, then it has natural characteristics, no? That means we'd be able to define, observe and study those natural characteristics.

If something is supernatural, or outside of nature, then it cannot be observed by natural means, can it? Therefore, why bother talking about it? Claiming that you can't observe god because it's outside of nature is akin to saying it isn't even real, seeing as how everything we know of so far is within the natural universe.

Also, the prime mover argument is just silly, and I'm not going to debate this with you. We've exhausted the prime mover argument again and again on this forum and the only people who find it convincing are religious people, interestingly enough. And then maybe @Belaqua as his sole purpose on the board seems to be acting as a contrarian to any and every atheist. Outside of that, no one takes the argument seriously and I just don't care to get into it as I've done it countless times with countless other people.

There are logical arguments that the mind is not the brain, and that intentionality is indissoluble. These are not objective, verifiable phenomena though, so you might dismiss the arguments categorically. Hume's fork?

Logical arguments don't really help much with proving the existence of unverifiable concepts, unfortunately. After all, you don't use logic alone to cross the street, do you? No, you also use observation and evidence that can be verified by others.

That's a good note to end on.

Where there's life, there's hope.