I have been debating with myself one specific point which essentially stems from the fallacy that a lack of evidence is not an evidence of lack. (Note that this a purely a thought experiment, not a claim, and that, on balance, the whole set of arguments against theism outweigh one possible philosophical issue which only relates to intellectual decency.)
Essentially, the fact that there is a lack of evidence to support theistic views does not mean that it's evidence of a lack of God. Imagine God to be something similar to our 21st century minds and technology like the continent of America was to 15th century Europe.
(Side note: To avoid potential nitpicking about this specific premise, I know that America was discovered and rediscovered, but the "official" discovery was an accident as the goal of the expedition was to find India. That some in the 15th century Europe might even have been aware that America existed is a bit irrelevant as society as a whole certainly did not believe it was there, and it's the mindset of those who did not believe which is interesting.)
Now, try to enter this mindset and think that God is in a similar situation. Just like the 15th century mindset and technology could not comprehend the continent of America, the mindsets and technology today is not capable of providing the evidence required to detect or understand a divinity.
Therefore, a God may exist (but it doesn't matter).
Edit: The title was erroneous in it's use of the word "for". This is not an argument for theisim, it's an argument not against theism. Thanks to Kasu for this insight.
I don't think we can completely rule out some sort of extension of our consciousness into something else, but that something else really can't be thought of as anything more than 'something else' without some sort of evidence.
In the same way, I can't rule out the creation and 'governance' of the universe as being in the realm of 'something else'. We've already disproved 'god' so we know it isn't that, and science has given us a few good ideas that we can at least investigate, but until we know, it just remains in the realm of 'something else', as in not that which we already know to be impossible.
Just to be clear, I don't endorse everything I was saying. But I usually like to play devils advocate. I'm not sure what the atheist version of that is though. Kirk Cameron's advocate, I guess.
Hmmm.. When I get to thinking about it, it appears to me that science tends to point to that the complexity we see today is due to fairly simple mechanisms. Not that understanding them is easy, but the processes themselves don't seem too involved. While religion strives to find "irreducable complexity" (downward looking), science seem to point to "irreducable simplicity" (upward looking). A flower is a complex arrangement of much simpler biological processes, biological processes are complex arrangement of much simpler chemicals, chemicals are complex arrangement of fairly simple atoms, etc. until you reach the point where nothing can be broken down further. Even the universe itself points back to a simple point in time and space.
"As for the opening concept about lack of evidence... There is nothing wrong with that as a concept, how ever, it can not be used as an argument for something existing."
You are absolutely correct and I did not catch it at first (I tried to update the title, unfortunately I could not use strikethrough on "for"). An argument which is not contradictory to the conclusion is not necessarily supportive of it.
"Is God some universe of thought, and we are the reflections of it's thought as it dreams or tried to understand it self? I have no idea, but it is fun to think about."
I love this one and I love to speculate too. Some of the pictures of the universe looks to me like pictures of neurons. Perhaps we are merely a neuron in some giants head?
You certainly have a way with thoughts and words, and I'm happy you chose to join us. :)