Whether or not there is a supernatural being or a spiritual realm could not by definition have physical evidence at all. Therefore while this statement is true, it doesn't add or subtract from the possibility of a god actually existing.
By default, unless the existence of God is proven, he doesn't exist. If I say to you an invisible pink sheep rules us all, I would have to prove that fact to you; it won't be up to you to prove me that there is no pink sheep. Same logic applies to God.
Existence and definition are both limiting factors that decrease the depth and scope of the item with which they seek to illuminate; therefore logically God cannot exist nor be defined, for to do so would be imposing boundaries on him/her, and thereby diminishing his/her powers and attributes.
When evaluating a risk humans look at 2 things, the possibility of something bad happening and how bad the thing is. Religion plays on the fact that the risk is more severe than any other fate (last to eternity), so the possibility of the bad happening (god existing) would not matter as much.
There is no evidence directly dismissing the possibility of a God. Looking particularly at the beliefs of the Christian faith, there is evidence for a global flood, the Kalam argument, evidence from cosmology, physiology, astronomy,biochemistry and for the event with Jesus Christ, history
Assuming the big bang to be true... matter time and space must have a beginning point. Whatever was before them and caused them must be immaterial, immutable, and nonspacial. These are usually given characteristcs of God
to person who gave me Appeal to Belief: I'm not saying that I'm right because most people give these characteristics of God, just using them to be general
Nor is there evidence to believe the opposite. At best, there is no claim of truth on the subject, thus while there is no evidential obligation to believe in god, there is no evidential justification for claiming someone's belief false.
If the fate of a person (i.e. their "soul" as defined by judeo christian religions) relies on their acceptance of the existence of God, then it is reasonable to bridge the gap between evidence and belief as you are forced to make a choice as to whether or not you believe in God.
The people that believe in science as opposed to God still believe in governing factors of the universe. It is undeniable that there is something that controls/dictates the universe and whether that is an all-powerful being or it is science, there is a sense of "god" to everyone.
By definition God is infinite. Whether the universe is infinite or finite, God would be omni-present. In which case God would be everywhere and no where. There is no contrasting evidence and, therefore there is no need to argue one way or the other.
This depends on your definition of "God". Declare "God" to be a 6-armed blue elephant man or a tortured zombie jew and your assertion seems preposterous. But if "God" is defined as the prime mover or original cause of our universe or reality, of whatever nature, the concept is undeniable.