Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[SteveII]

Still waiting for evidence of a god.
Any god will do.

Great, another atheist that has problems with definitions.

Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive.

Proof can have different thresholds. Anywhere from more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence), to beyond a reasonable doubt, to absolute. These are all arrived at by considering evidence. So, to say that my list is not evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine--that is the threshold you chose.

So far all I've gotten is some ramblings about a story book. That book and it's many authors are not evidence. That book is the claim.

Three points on the New Testament not being the claim:

1- The claim is that the events outlined in the gospels really happened--one in particular: that Jesus Christ, the son of God, came to earth to redeem humanity and provide a way for people to have a relationship with God.
2- The gospels and Acts catalog the claim. The balance are letters discussing and applying the claim.
3- The NT consists of 27 different documents written over 50 years time (give or take). It's a little bit of an understatement to describe such a diverse collection of palaeographical gold as if it were one thing: the claim.

Evidence for this claim are the people and events surrounding the life of Jesus that the authors wrote about. It is not as if the NT writers wrote essays on what people were saying and gave no opinion on the facts. They were testifying to its truthfulness (as evidenced by their own experience or by interviewing eyewitnesses as they wrote it).

Supernatural by definition is beyond our natural world.
There is nothing we can say about it or it's properties.
It is outside of existence and things outside of existence are non existent by fucking definition.

More definition problems! That is not the definition of supernatural. Supernatural just means not existing naturally-beyond the laws of nature. There is nothing in the definition that says it cannot interact with the natural world. If the supernatural can effect the natural world (the definition of a miracle), then there is something we can say about it's properties. 

I hope I made my point.

You can argue about the stories in the bible all day and it doesn't get you one step closer to providing evidence of a god.

It's obvious you actually don't know much about the Bible. But let's set that aside for the moment. There were other categories of evidence in my list that you left out. 

P4. An untold number of people have reported such effects (experienced God as outlined in the NT)
P5. An untold number of people have reported minor miracles (defined as person-oriented miracles for which the goal is very narrow -- as opposed to the NT miracles which had broad application and goals). Ranges from healing, bringing about events/experiences/encounters/open doors, extraordinary strength/peace/perseverance, evangelistic success, etc.
P6. The question why anything at all exists has no naturalistic explanation (and most likely none forthcoming).
P7. The question of why the universe exists has no metaphysically sound naturalistic explanation. There is no reason to think one will be forthcoming.
P8. The question of why our universe has the narrow range of physical constants which seem necessary to form matter and conserve energy but under naturalism has no other explanation than fantastically amazing chance that would not be accepted in any other case.
P9. The question of why our minds seem non-physical but have causal powers over the physical undercuts hard naturalism and seems to have parallels to the concept of the supernatural (not that they are necessarily supernatural).

Go ahead, answer these. Until then you have made no point.