Evidence works by force, so evidence does not apply to the spiritual domain.
Math logic for beginners - the evidences in the spiritual domain (if exists) are called plausibility and are verified and validated with logical methods - lack of contradictions, logical inferences in support of it, etc.
A fact is a copy / model of something. If you have an exact model of the moon, then you have all the facts about it.
What you call facts here is actually perception, representation and mapping of the reality, for brevity our understanding of the world
The interpretation of most of the other sciences about fact
is not phenomenology, but rather 'something that truly exists or happens in the real world; something that has actual existence; something that is, has been or always will be' - in other words fact is something that has at least material carrier. If you find out the material carrier of the spiritual domain (Higgs bozons or String theory, or whatever), I may start believing you about the fact of existance in the 'spiritual domain'.
The very fact (as something that has actual existence) that we cannot find the carrier does not necessarily mean that the spiritual domain is impossible to exist, but this infers nothing. The odds are 50:50 - we neither know what our spirit is, nor even know whether we are able, or allowed, or authorized to ever get knowing this.
What is in the spiritual domain is a matter of opinion.
How are you so sure that it is exactly 'domain' (hyperspace), and not for example quantum communication channel?
Only in a free way can you reach a conclusion about what acts in a free way. Forming an opinion operates by expression of emotion with free will.
This 'free will' is some kind of an illusion.
1. Living in society and having free will is impossible.
2. The free will of one person is constrains to the others.
3. It is not sure that too much free will
is something good, but this is just my opinion.
4. Some of the atheists have become such only for the 'free will' theory - in order to get rid of the constraints of morality and to justify their irresponsibility in wasting the resources of the planet.
So, it is possible to do away with all material, then you are left to form an opinion on what is in the spiritual domain
I don't know what do you mean by that 'to do away with', perhaps 'renunciation of material possessions' but actually one cannot do this, for in the worst case scenario he should possess or have free access to: unpolluted air, clean water, some food ... and some 'free will' ... and eventually some devices with access to the net - as a minimum :-) ... which means communications, informatics, electric power consumption - this does not seem to me as 'renunciation of material possessions'.
... and choose there is nothing in it.
Actually I don't understand this last one.
The very fact (as something that truly exists or happens in the real world) that we don't like that something that is there, does not mean that there is 'nothing in it' - this is a different interpretation of the nothing