What would you consider to be evidence for God?

[Kingpin]

Yeah, the resurrection...

Are you aware that the resurrection account is widely considered to be a forgery? As in, not even a part of the original story which itself was a hearsay account written decades later?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

Even if it wasn't a forgery and "Mark" thought it important enough to include in his account, why would you believe it actually happened over any other mythical tale of magic happenings? (Compare and contrast to Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter.)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1611224/

The scholars disagree on the resurrection in exact correlation to whether they are Christian or not; that is, whether they already presuppose it.

My dear friend Rob, please don't tell me you actually used wikipedia as a reputable source.  No educational institution allows for that here because it is editable by anyone.  Hell, I just edited that article now and added the sentence "Hi there Robvalue!" in the beginning of the first paragraph.  

I would point you to the works of Gary Habermas and Lee Strobel who take a historical and legal perspective on the issue.  Many discount these two gentlemen arguing that they come from a presupposition of God (Strobel did not, he was a self proclaimed atheist).  However even if that were the case, should we discredit scientists studies who start from a presupposition of naturalism and evolution?  Hardly.