The term 'metaphysics' refers to the most fundamental assumptions upon which Men base their explanations.
A metaphysical belief, therefore - and by definition, has no 'evidence' to support it: none whatsoever.
This means that in an unthinking, habitual age of 'science', empirical investigation and 'data'; any person's metaphysical assumption can be destroyed by pointing-out that there is 'no evidence' to support it.
This is the strategy of Metaphysical subversion.
Metaphysical subversion is a false argument - because:
1. There never is any evidence to support metaphysical assumptions - else they would not be metaphysical assumptions; and
2. The concept of evidence is necessarily built upon metaphysical assumptions - all 'why-type' questions eventually lead to an assumption - even when, as in the case of 'science', these assumptions are seldom talked-of except to deny their reality or necessity.
I wonder how many millions of intellectuals and educated people have fallen for this rhetorical trick?
I certainly have!
We are born into this world, it seems, already believing in the supernatural, in gods/God, and believing that many features of our environment are alive and aware and purposive.
(I regard this knowledge as having been built-in.)
In other words, we naturally have in-place the necessary metaphysical assumptions to 'believe in God'.
In the modern West, these spontaneous inborn assumptions are attacked by the prevalent secular Leftist society; and they are attacked mostly on the basis that there is no evidence for our assumptions.
(There is no actual evidence against these natural metaphysical assumptions!; in the sense that there is no evidence against them which does not depend upon equally evidence-free metaphysical assumptions.)
The only 'respectable' position to hold in modern Western society is therefore that there is no evidence for the existence of gods/ God, because the assumptions which lead people naturally to believe in gods/ God have 'no evidence to support them'.
Having been mislead into abandoning his in-built metaphysical assumptions, having decided - in other words - to reject many of his own spontaneous beliefs about the nature of reality, modern Man then finds himself wondering why it is that God has failed to provide compelling, overwhelming, evidence of His existence!
(A trap: a fly bottle! Wander in, and there seems no way out!)
In other words, Modern Man decides to reject the evidence for the reality of God on the basis that this evidence rests on (natural, spontaneous, inborn) assumptions for which there is no evidence; Man therefore overthrows his in-built assumptions; finally Modern Man complains that there is 'no evidence' for the reality of God!
This is metaphysical subversion triumphant: completely incoherent, deeply dishonest, wholly lacking in rigour - and (almost-completely) successful!...