Let's answer CARM's Questions for Atheists

[Esquilax]

Yes, the hole is defined by what surrounds it, but the hole itself is not the same as that which surrounds it. The point is that Esquilax asked for something that is intrinsically immaterial. A hole is known with respect to something material but is not itself material. Thus it is possible to know about something that is indeed immaterial through observation of something that is material.

Uh, maybe go back and read the question we were prompted to respond to: you just said that we can have physical evidence of an immaterial thing, which CARM labels as a category error.

I also find it interesting that, in a discussion about an apparently immaterial god, the first thing you jump to is something that doesn't actually exist, but is a term used to describe the absence of something, an interruption in an expected pattern of material things that comprise a solid object. That has a lot of connotations that don't exactly help your case.