Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[SteveII]

Unfortunately [for all of us I suppose], you don't know what you are talking about. 

When have I used the term 'Bible'? Be more accurate. I mentioned the 27 first century documents that we call the NT. What do you mean by "LONG". All the NT documents were written within the life of eyewitnesses and possible rebuttal witnesses. The resurrection was certainly believed from day one because there were churches throughout the Roman empire that were receiving letters 20 years later describing their common belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Why would there have existed churches with such a belief PRIOR to any of the surviving documents we have? Additionally, you have to dismiss the entire book of Acts--which chronicled the events of the early church.  What reason's do you give for that? 

Additionally, why say "100% confirm"? Who demands that standard? Not anyone I know.

Ok then, the New Testament, [much like the old one] is full of shit.

From my understanding, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but some of the gospels are written by: A) people that never met Jesus or wrote their story some time after the initial events. You say it's based on eye witness reports and possible rebuttal witnesses, but that isnt' enough really is it. And even then, if these people who wrote the books all knew each other, who's to say if they didn't just "invent" a character and write about his fictional life?

One or more of those people could easily have made up various events, and the story compiled? 

Leaving aside Luke--who said what he was setting out to do, how do you know who wrote the other three gospels--that they never met Jesus? The fact that there were churches and 27 individual documents that support each other's claims is GOLD to a historian. The events surrounding the life a Jesus have more evidence and more attestations than any other series of events in all of ancient history. 

Your theory that it was a conspiracy has been tried before. There is absolutely no evidence for it AND it is stupid to think the first century Christians acted and sacrificed as they did for something they knew to be a lie and was to any Jew the most grievous sin imaginable--blasphemy. No one takes that theory seriously. 

I mean we just have no way of knowing at all. And to take anything in a 2000 year old book full of magic (Healing people in the way it suggest, that never happened. I'm sorry, but it's a flat out lie) if down right dishonest to your self. Outside of this book, or parts of the books for the NT and OT to be fair, we have no REAL creadible evidence that ANY of it happened. The New Testament itself is not evidence of anything. It's akin to any other story of fiction that is based in a real world setting: You know the places, but the people involved/the events are fictional.

I'll address this below.

The Resurrection was supposedly added some 200 years later to the preexisting story of "Jesus died for our sins". From what I have read, the ending of "mark" has been edited several times over the years, with evidence to back that up as well, so again, how can you take it seriously? 
Edit to add: Evidence for the changing of endings - to Mark:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#Ev...e_8_ending

Um, Um, First, did you actually bother to read Mark 16:1-8 (before your so-called "added ending"). Perhaps you should do that and then tell me that the resurrection was added 200 years later. 

Second, perhaps you can then peruse through all the other 26 first-century documents--look for references on resurrection--they all have it or refer to concepts that require it. Then get back to me about your made-up 200 year nonsense.  In case you want to make the claim that they were all re-written, no scholar of any standing believes that. Bart Ehrman (and atheist textual critic) thinks that they are all 99% as they originally were. 

100% confirm = REAL world evidence. Find the tomb he was buried in. Find a trace of DNA, SOMETHING that actually ties down what this book says to anything you say happened. It doenst exist. The romans kept VERY good records, and there is no record of this ever happening.

Setting aside that finding any of those things today would prove nothing, 99.9% of history of events and people is conveyed in writing. You don't know what someone did, thought, said, believed by archaeology. Also, 99.99% of all historical documents do not survive. Here's a question, how many references to Hannibal are their that were dated within his lifetime. Do you believe Hannibal did the things ascribed to him? Why? We don't have any "REAL world evidence". 

Edit to add: And, BTW, your last sentence is a perfect example of question begging. - ? I dont understand this at all. Again if you take that seriously, good for you. Jesus didn't walk on water, he didn't feed 5000 people with a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish, he did not turn water into win, he didn't heal the blind........he didn't do any of those things, A) because IT IS 100% IMPOSSIBLE to do that, at least in the manner the NT suggests and B) because it is most liklely that jesus didn't exist at all in the first place.

Question begging is circular reasoning (which you just double-down on). Here's the basics of your reasoning:

1. Miracles can't happen
2. The NT contains miracles
3. Therefore the NT cannot be true because it contains miracles

You have assumed your conclusion in your first premise. I know, I know, it takes away 80% of your argument, but stop anyway. 

BTW, there is almost no ancient history scholar that believes that Jesus never existed. Even atheist scholars don't bother to claim that nonsense.