Great religious falsehoods

I guess so. Empirical evidence of some sort - Yes.If God is the cause of physical effects in the physical universe then the physical effects are themselves obviously empirically observable.How we could relate these effects back to actually being evidence for (or against) an immaterial God is a more difficult question.
The usual method seems to be to invoke God where there is no material explanation available. But I think you would agree that this is a diminishing God and a poor method of investigating this question.Therefore it would seem to me that we are restricted to seeking evidence for God with reference to his physical effect on his favored creation (i.e. man) and our requests, needs and desires. If God genuinely has an effect on our physical lives then can we in any way link this back to God?So the questions then are -1) Does God indeed have any direct physical effect on anyone (answering physical requestes in prayers, physically punishing evildoers, physically rewarding the faithful and righteaous etc. etc.)
2) If God does have any such physical effect can we trace these effects back to God in any way at all?How would you answer those two questions?

Why would God go out of his way (i.e. amend his actions) in order to evade empirical evidence of his existence?If he was going to answer a prayer to save a dying relative (or whetever) are you really suggesting that in certain circumstances God would think "Hold up, This could be used as evidence in favour of my existence. Better not answer that one after all. Next."He also seems to have been much less concerened with supplying (or not supplying) evidence for his existence in biblical times. Why the concern now and not then?

I fundamentally disagree.Laws have to be rationally founded to be viable. Even if we disagree with a particular law there has to be a basis on which it's merits (or otherwise) can be rationally argued. Society will benefit, national security demands it, the rights of the individual etc. etc. etc. etc.If a law is ultimately based on "I believe in something unprovable" then why should anyone who does not share that particular belief or ideology follow that particualar law? No viable argument can be made in favour of that law.The reasoning behind such laws effectively amounts to 'Because I say so'.

Fair enough. I would go onto argue that if there is rational reason for a particulat law then the religious inspiration is just an unnecessary middle man in terms of advocating and implementing said law. I know next to nothing about the US constitution. But if there are good rational reasons for laws they, and the arguments for them, should stand on their own merits without need for reference to religious doctrine. No?

OK. In the case of an omnipotent God this would obviously and indisputably be true. It depends what questions are asked. If we assume that there is a 'why' to many physical phenomenon (why am I here? etc. etc. etc.) then this is correct. However if we accept that there is no 'why' your statement is less obviously true.
However religious answers to such 'why' questions are equally unsatisfactory as eventually we just end up pointlessly questioning the mind of God (or whatever). In short such quetions have no answers. Material or otherwise. Why wold God make sure that he canot he found empirically?
How would this work in pratise? Would a dying child who would have been saved through prayer (forexample) not be saved if that prayer and it's results were being monitored for evidence of God?

Should we consider the bible evidence for the existence of God?