We don't have to argue against evidence that has not been presented. That's why we don't have to falsify "God".<quoted text>
Its interesting that you know what to look for, yet you dont proceed to look for it.
Now that communicates something about your attitude or natural disposition towards "God".
You are hardly arguing without your personal biases.
Your argument is motivated by prejudice.
It is the ones who argue for a thing that bear the burden of proof; so the ones that argue AGAINST it have the "burden of disproof".
It is you that bear the burden of disproof regarding the existence of God. We are still waiting.
The concept is non-falsifiable. That's not a good thing since Cosmic Sheep from dimension Zog are also non-falsifiable. Science can happily ignore what is non-falsifiable because there's no valid reason to presume they exist. Hence they are irrelevant to science.
If you want to argue against fundamentalist atheists who claim to have falsified the God concept outright then go talk to them. Science doesn't care. There's this one guy who goes by the moniker of "Skeptic" (affectionately referred to as Skippy).