What would you consider to be evidence for God?

[snowtracks]

The evidence is Creation and Scripture; God cannot have an explanation of His existence which is external to Him for then He would depend for His existence on whatever thing it is. That's why is it said 'God is a necessary Being'. Science and Philosophy theories breakdown when an infinite regression is called upon.
Most get their information from organization and groups (as in NOVA, Nature, Scientific American, all secular universities) that will only explain science from a naturalistic point of view by policy (not a conspiracy, but some don't know this important factoid) even though the explanation is better explain by the supernatural. That why science can be used to determine God's existence but can't be used exclusively, nor can the 5 senses be used exclusively. It's framed better when God's existence is not ruled out before the investigation begins which the AAAS membership does - http://www.aaas.org/

The first paragraph is basicly you admitting you've not got the first clue about how god could exist, but ratioalising this inability to explain away as "he cannot be explajned because...reasons". That is a completely inadequate reason, for a munber of reasons, the most glaring of which being it doesn't explain the utter lack of evidence for god, nor why anybody needs assume he is a necessary being.

Your second paragraph, despite your protestation, describes the philosophy of science as a little known conspiracy to keep the truth unknown, which is deeply ironic for two reasons. First it is religion, not science which has a long and ignominious record if denying the truth and torturing those who dare to say it. And second, science's central premise is the elimination of the wrong. The scientific method is not primarily abot confirming rightness but weeding out wrongness. Something can pnly be considered right in science if it keeps passing the tests over and over and over again. Just because something you want to be true doesn't conform with this system, it doesn't follow that the system is wrong, but it is far more likely that you are wrong (especially seeing as not only are you unwilling to provide evidence, but that you insist that evidence is impossible).

You want the world to presuppose god simply because it would make you happy and give your unimaginative and limited brain meaning. Reality does not work that way.

Using 11 'you' seems unimaginative to me. Atheist pretend they don't believe in God's existence by feigning they have problems with the data. What really is happening is they don't like God's moral authority; everyone was made in the image of God which means they have an eternal spirit which continues to exist post physical death; the issue is therefore accepting redemption which provides eternal spiritual life post physical death or eternal spiritual death (independence from God's influence in one's life). Since everyone believes in God's existence*, no proofs are needed or desired. I post to dialog, not to prove.

*  For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.