Let's examine your response in more detail then.
The quote that I made and to which you refer("I asked for evidence of God, not particularly its visibility.") was part of a response to Vlad, who was emphasising that God wouldn't be physically visible. This was in response to my suggesting that critical thinking was a particularly helpful approach in order to be aware of confirmation bias and to be able to evaluate information. So, let's examine your statement:
The evidence of God lies in you.
By this I have to assume that you think that you mean subjective evidence. I would accept that this is a form of evidence but it can be extremely unreliable. It is based on personal perception and internal experiences and can differ wildly from person to person. So, for instance, if I were to look within myself to find evidence of God, as you suggest, my internal experiences lead me to the conclusion that there are no gods whatever. So, if I were led solely by my personal experiences then I would no doubt say that there are no gods at all. However, I don't say that because, using critical thinking, I am unable to make such outright assertions. I simply suggest that I know of no convincing evidence for any of the gods that I have knowledge of, including yours. Furthermore, I find a fair amount of evidence against the idea of an interventionist god.
Do you honestly believe that every thought, word or deed you consciously invoke is merely unavoidable reactions to past events which are beyond your control? The materialist scenario allows us no freedom - we would be entirely determined by past events over which we have no conscious control. We cannot control the past.
Whenever you use the word 'you' 'your' or 'we' in the above, for the purposes of the argument, I would substitute the idea of a brain instead.
Therefore, as long as you include all sorts of influences(e.g. genetic make up), include any interactions to past events which may have a bearing on the brain's decision making process(which are also part of the past events scenario) and allow for the random probablities inherent in a possible quantum secenario, then the answer to your question is emphatically yes, even though you seem to question it in your usual incredulous manner.
I find this interview given by the neural philospher, Patricia Churchland, to be generally applicable to my own views.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029450-200-the-benefits-of-realising-youre-just-a-brain/Once you realise that the true source of your freedom cannot be determined by material reactions alone, your are free to seek the real truth - the truth that sets you free.
This is clearly an assertion on your part. Not only is it an assertion, it also smacks of being a deepity which says nothing of significance either about truth(whatever that is) or freedom.
Finally it seems that you can't leave your pet ideas alone, even though they've been debunked time and time again on this forum. For better or worse, I find your views to be extremely blinkered(as you probably do mine). As I am not in the slightest business of trying to convert you, I simply wish you well.
