Let’s leave calling God a flying spaghetti monster comment aside for a moment. Discounting what you would call non-scientific evidence that God exists leaves you at a disadvantage when trying to argue your point. People who believe in some kind of creator like you do not believe in coincidences. Some of the experiences and what would be called ‘faith building’ experiences simply are not provable scientifically.
Granted, we humans have a history of getting this wrong too. What I would call an inaccurate correlation between action and result often lead to a belief in a deity who had specific control of a specific natural event.
Now back to the comment. If you really want to have the conversation, comments like these are what stop them flat. At this point you simply appear to be playing to your side of the argument and no longer attempting to be convincing. Maybe this is the same result my comment about the flat earth conclusion had with you. If so that was not the intent. I will not take your comment to be that either.
However, this goes back to the core discussion in the thread: the lack of trust developing in the scientific community. If there is a perceived built in bias (such as believing in God is the same as believing in a spaghetti monster) no matter how sound your scientific approach is at finding the truth (or more accurately the most viable conclusion given the evidence at hand) of a matter is not going to be trusted by a lot of people.