If we don't find what we're looking for, it might just mean that we don't have the necessary instruments to perceive what we are looking for.
The problem here is that someone has claimed to have found something. However, when we really dig deep into the claim, we find that there is absolutely nothing empirically demonstrable about their claim. It is purely an emotional experience.
The real question is why even claim to have found something if you don't have the necessary observations to begin with?
Some folks wont believe anything without evidence.
I would say that with god claims, it is even worse. Before the advent of modern science, almost everything in nature had a supernatural explanation of one kind or another. People accepted these claims based on faith. These explanations turned out to be spectacularly false. Not just a little bit, but way wrong.
Why should we accept faith based arguments when they have failed so badly time and again?
This time I prayed for Gods comfort. I realize that this is a vague term, and critics could quite correctly assert that prayer had nothing to do with the result. The fact is, however, I went before 100+ people and shared my detention center ministry experience with them...totally unafraid, totally focused on the audience, and at no loss for words. My biased belief says that God helped me.
If someone claimed that they prayed to Zeus and had the same experience, would you convert to worshipping Zeus? What about Vishnu? I don't think you would. So why should I be convinced by the same argument for a god I don't believe in?
According to the USUAL definition of a creator, (rather than the definition used by atheists, of, "nothing that exists", LOL) there is plentiful evidence of God, in all things which have order, specified complexity, genius solutions in nature, such as the aggregate eye obeying several very complex physical laws, neat formulas physicists largely tell us indicates theism rather than not, in other words, it is more reasonable to expect from a Godless world, a random chaotic mess, and where we find beautiful design, order, a well laid plan riddle with contingencies, whatever the usual designer thing is, we find evidence consistent with God.
Defining God into existence is little more than begging the question. I could define Thor as the creator of lightning, and then use lightning as evidence for Thor, but I doubt you would find it that compelling.
Why? Invisibility is not only shared with false things but also with true things. A higgs boson was believed, not "known", for a long time. In the same way we see the effects of a creation but not the required creator.
The Higgs Boson was not defined as being invisible as God is. That's the difference. Once again, you beg the question when you claim that a creation requires a supernatural deity.
The answer is because our imagination can create false things because false things can be invisible, therefore it is a tautology, that anything you can think up can be equal to God in God's invisibility.
Imagination is the most parsimonious answer. When there is no distinguishable observable difference between a claimed entity existing and not existing, then parsimony points to not existing as the best answer.