Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[polymath257]

Again, cite your sources, as is required in any proper argument. You have no argument, inductive or otherwise, until you prove that these alleged events actually took place. Thus far, all you have done is made a series of unsubstantiated CLAIMS.

Sources: Depends on the premise. The 27 documents contained in the NT. Other documentary evidence that discusses the existence of churches and their beliefs (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/), Josephus, Tacitus.

There you go using the word 'prove' again. You really need to re-read my post above. 

Further, what exactly do you mean by "prove"? It seems there are different kinds of proof.
* Scientific proof
* Historical proof
* Logical proofs (both deductive and inductive)
* Proof resulting from personal experience

There also also different thresholds of proof:
* Possible
* More likely than not (preponderance of the evidence)
* Beyond reasonable doubt
* Absolute certainty

These lists result in 16 different combinations alone (and I'm sure I missed some).In my experience, a discussion like the one you are intending is a long series of shifting the goal post until you arrive at demanding something akin to absolute certainty resulting from scientific proof for a specific belief. The problem is that this is not the standard necessary for a rational belief. Another point, atheist constantly miss the fact that religious belief is due to a cumulative set of reasons to believe--all with their own kind/threshold of proof needed for that particular individual. So, to simply demand "proof" is insufficient. What kind, what threshold, single issue or cumulative, and to what end?

Well, let's eliminate 'personal proof', which is the same as anecdotal. We can also eliminate 'logical proof' since logic alone can say nothing baout the real world.

So, in this context, scientific and historical proof will be the main contenders.

For a claim in the existence of a deity, 'possible' is rather too weak. I would go for 'beyond a reasonable doubt', but this requires *all* of the evidence, including the nature of the society, the local history, the biases and personalities of those involved, the provenance of any writings (not just the claimed authors), and any scientific evidence that the events could actually happen as stated. Evaluation of texts should be done in the same way as any other texts from the time period and society. Any extraordinary claims made should be treated the same as similar claims made by other authors.

Which means, you loose, badly

---

The way I think about it is that whenever there was time, there was matter, energy, and space. Causality only makes sense *within* the universe because causality requires time and time is part of the universe.

At no point in time was there 'nothing'. If nothing else, there was time.

That's wrong. Causality does not require time--time requires causality (events). 

Sorry, but I am correct in this. Causality only happens in the future light cone. It is the action of physical laws from some initial condition giving rise to some later condition. So causality requires *at least* time and the action of physical laws.