Once again, you are being dishonest.<quoted text>
Your lie is that there is zero evidence for a god.
Even after you conceded there is.
To repeat: I began by stating that I find zero evidence for a god. Then I indulged you and said that, assuming arguendo that you could posit some sort of "circumstantial" evidence--which you hadn't even specified, by the way--any such evidence would be insufficient under any standard.
Again, I have not conceded that there is evidence. I find no evidence. Want to show me what you consider to be evidence of a god? Or do you just want to attack my person, by repeatedly calling me a liar?
If the latter is the case, I'm done with this discussion.