(sorry about typo...social perniciousness
If you are looking for depth of argument, you might consider further that what I see as the key question....that of the nature of "existence" itself....pre-empts all discussion of "logic" or "evidence". If we assume (like Kant) that we have no direct access to any "external reality" we surely surely come to the phenomenological position that such "a reality" is at best a cognitive construction acquired through that interactive behavior which human's call "language". Further, we can argue that is the abstract
persistence of "words" rather than the known dynamic flux of physical entities which serves our psychological requirement of a stable "world" relative to our human activities of planning and prediction. When you think about it, today's "tree in the yard" is only the same
as yesterday's "tree in the yard" by virtue of its continued functionality denoted by the word "tree". In essence that "tree" is physically/biologically changing all the time. What persists is merely what functionally matters
to particular human interlocutors. And what can be argued for the word/concept "tree" can be argued for "rock" or"self" or "God". Their existential status is as temporary as the value
of tokens of monetary currency like dollar bills. And that value is determined by social functionality nothing more. Of course deists will tend to counter this by evoking a nebulousexceptional
permanence to the status of their "God" but this is merely equivalent to a faith in "the Gold Standard".
This re-focusing of philosophical questions about ontology towards linguistic issues ( what Philosophers have called Die Kehre ...the turn) comes from the understanding that (post the rise of psychology) language does not so much represent "reality" as construct it. Those interested might refer to Rorty (Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature) as a seminal work.