The problem arises that you are making the argument for agnosticism, and not for God's existence.
Just as in a court of law, the burden of proof lies on the accuser and not on the defendant. The accuser makes the allegations and must sustain them with evidence.
It is humanity's experience that God does not exist, regardless of the amount of belief we apply, because belief is outside the methods we use to understand the universe and its mechanics, and none of those methods can even formulate a basic assumption for the existence of God.
In fact, the more we refine those methods, the more they do not require and exclude God. If you are to observe the progression of science you will see that early scientists' universal models did include God, to explain those things not covered by their models, but as science progressed, those models become more complex and expansive and God was gradually and finally completely excluded.
As such, for you to provide evidence of God, you are required to provide the models and methods by which you have concluded God's existence, and thus far, all that has truly been provided is belief, which is quite possibly the least convincing thing there is, as anything can be believed by its mere statement, without any sort of evidence.
For instance, I believe there is a race of purple spidermonkeys on some planet in the galaxy next door, I can't prove it, but I believe it to be so, and now I come to you and ask you to prove it's not so. Does that sound fair?
For me the "way the universe is connected and functions on all levels" is simply not enough. It may even be a valid observation, but it does not follow that it is necessarily attributed to God's work or proves its existence. In fact, none of our current models of universal mechanics require, assume or prove God in any way.
The problem arises that you are making the argument for agnosticism, and not for God's existence.
Just as in a court of law, the burden of proof lies on the accuser and not on the defendant. The accuser makes the allegations and must sustain them with evidence.
It is humanity's experience that God does not exist, regardless of the amount of belief we apply, because belief is outside the methods we use to understand the universe and its mechanics, and none of those methods can even formulate a basic assumption for the existence of God.
In fact, the more we refine those methods, the more they do not require and exclude God. If you are to observe the progression of science you will see that early scientists' universal models did include God, to explain those things not covered by their models, but as science progressed, those models become more complex and expansive and God was gradually and finally completely excluded.
As such, for you to provide evidence of God, you are required to provide the models and methods by which you have concluded God's existence, and thus far, all that has truly been provided is belief, which is quite possibly the least convincing thing there is, as anything can be believed by its mere statement, without any sort of evidence.
For instance, I believe there is a race of purple spidermonkeys on some planet in the galaxy next door, I can't prove it, but I believe it to be so, and now I come to you and ask you to prove it's not so. Does that sound fair?
For me the "way the universe is connected and functions on all levels" is simply not enough. It may even be a valid observation, but it does not follow that it is necessarily attributed to God's work or proves its existence. In fact, none of our current models of universal mechanics require, assume or prove God in any way.