I don't see why anyone here would object to your basic position as you have stated it, shimrod. I certainly wouldn't.

However, I can't relate to this part of what you said: "There may be an omnipotent, omniscient Creator for all I know - but I've never seen the slightest bit of evidence for one - but evidence could show up one day. But if He really is omni-this 'n' that, you'd think that He would be fairly conspicuous, wouldn't you?"

Heh! It sounds as if you are talking about an interstellar version of Pablo Picasso or something...hiding out there in a studio somewhere beyond the Andromeda Nebula...the "Creator", planning his next creation.

This is a fallacious concept to use when positing a God, in my opinion, because it's a very limited concept based on our own experience in dealing with limited phenomena, and mostly...just in dealing with other people. Everything and everyone we know has a location, a description, a history, a beginning, and an end. That's what you seem to be imagining the fictional God you describe to have!

Well, I think if you were to investigate the deeper mystical aspects of Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, and pretty well all the other isms out there, you would discover that the God or the transcendent reality that they are attempting to relate to in their teachings is NOT an individual being with a location...but a principle that is intrinsic in EVERYTHING. It is omnipresent. It's a bit like gravity, you might say. Therefore it's everywhere, not somewhere, and it has no beginning or end, no observable characteristics, no defining boundaries, no limitations.

As such, everything is evidence of that God! Or nothing is. ;-) And that is strictly a matter of individual persuasion or individual taste as to how you look at it. One person can look at another human being or at the sky...and see God revealed therein! Another person will look at the same human being and see only a competitor or an opportunity! And he will look at the sky and see only clouds, sun, light effects, and perhaps a bird flying by. One of those views is more mundane than the other, that's all. One is concerned with the surface of things, the other goes way beyond the surface of things. Science is not going to resolve this matter one way or the other. It can't. Neither is logic going to resolve it. Neither will experiments in labs resolve it. Neither are your words or mine on this forum going to resolve it. It will remain ungraspable and insoluble by any form of human observation or analysis. It's a complete mystery....as is the origin of life itself.

The less a person can stand to be confronted with an insoluble mystery, the more irritated he may become at someone else's faith in something he himself cannot see! But it really doesn't matter. Each to his own.