Hi Joint,
The Eisenbeiss case supplies evidence that all atheists are mistaken; if this is only "suggestive" of God, that is fine with me because man already has TRUTH sufficient to back up an adequate and complete understanding of professor Eisenbeiss' observations. The best explanation will incorporate all of the data, and I am supplying that TRUTH right here.
Inspired writings are suggestive of a higher truth, and they can be gauged by way of the content-source problem. Such an analysis suggests that the Phoenix Journals are true; Phoenix Journals also provide one with a better understanding of the content-source problem, so I am promoting this content in order to educate readers about the true nature of rebirth.
So, I conclude that it is a lie to say that God does not exist or that God cannot be evidenced scientifically; the simplest and most adequate understanding of the evidence for survival demands something like God, and by the way, you can read the scientific proof in the Journal called "HUMAN THE SCIENCE OF MAN".
You can conclude, but you would be wrong.
You're committing an inductive fallacy. Specifically, you are holding up evidence to a preconceived notion of God which you haven't proven to be true, but which you must assume to be true if you are to confirm that the evidence proves God exists.
This is exactly why it is impossible for there to be any empirical proof of God's existence.
Simply put, you can't say evidence proves God unless you already know what God is, but at the same time you can't know what God is until you've proven it.