Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[RoadRunner79]

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

I know lots of atheists think that I should be loosing badly. But that usually comes from 1) bad logic (usually question begging) and 2) not actually understanding what the NT is.

You picked Scientific evidence as a standard and you said "and any scientific evidence that the events could actually happen as stated". That is question begging. You are assuming they could not have happened so the documents relating such events must be wrong.

The correct standard for the 27 NT documents and what we know about the churches is Historical (as you also identified). However, beyond a reasonable doubt is not the standard historians use for believing a historical event happened.  To insist that be my standard is called special pleading (your second logical misstep). 

Give me an example of "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." in the ancient world and I will describe the 100 ways in which that example is different than the 27 NT documents.

I think a big issue (that I notice anyway) is that many atheists are inconsistent.  They operate by different rules and principles and they make them up as they go along.  There is a lot of special pleading / hyper skepticism.    There is also of course the things that you point out, and a healthy dose of scientism which seems to be popular here.   This doesn't mean that they are wrong, but just that it is based on poor philosophy.