@jimdonegan
Bede ignores a huge problem with his first premise (i.e. God is beyond empirical evidence): If there's no evidence, no hint, no divine "fingerprint," you can't simply assert that a god exists in that gap, even if you can make a coherent philosophical argument for it. If something changes our reality in some way, we should be able to detect it (beyond subjective and unreliable "feelings").

If not, this god either doesn't exist, doesn't interact with Earth at all, or covers its tracks, all of which come to the same logical result: this god cannot be detected and can be safely ignored as a possibility.

Bede appears to be pretty behind on his atheist and theist arguments, though, so it's unsurprising he's making a lot of assumptions about the broader scholarship and discourse.