Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[OakTree500]

Mainly the way some have said "you're provided no evidence" and then you keep dodging the idea of doing such a thing. 

I mean, you either can prove it or you can't. Right now I'm leaning more towards "You can't" so, whatever man it's your life.

I wouldn't use the word "prove", but that is more a matter of precision.   Proof is for deductive logic and math.  And often, I'm not setting out to "prove" anything.  I find that most atheists here are familiar with the evidence, even if they cannot admit it as such (I've talked to some to seem to indicate, that it is not evidence, unless they believe the conclusion). 

I set much smaller goals, and often I am more interested in the basic principles and reasoning, rather than setting a high bar of convincing those who don't want to be convinced.   Focusing in on more the details and the smaller picture, rather than the larger one.  Such as your claim that the writings of the New Testament authors is not evidence (which you didn't answer my question), or even the broader one, that theists and Christians provide no evidence.  It's more these things, that I think need to be examined, before collecting and analyzing the larger picture of the evidence.  And as I noted, I think that atheists often jump around, and once you meet the goal, they shift it to something else, and then move it along again, and then come back to where you started. 

I get tired of the changing of the goal posts, and assumptions; such as here, where I made a comment about one thing, and in order to dodge the statements and questions, and it always gets changed to proving God, where we really won't discuss anything or get to demonstrate of that famous atheists critical thinking.

:Emphasis mine:

Ah, sorry about that, I'm not on the forum a whole lot.

The point of that is: the things mentioned in the new testament (Healing of the blind/walking on water/water into wine/Resurrection etc) never happened. At least not in the way it's portrayed in those stories, IE "and then magic happened". In terms of Jesus being a real person or not, I mean in all honesty, for me as a individual, I'm not against it if he was or not, the point being that it doesn't really matter, because the feats he was claimed to have performed, 100% did not happen at all. How do I know this? Because unless he was a scammer who performed magic tricks for people, [although I find it more likely that if he was real, he was just a decent guy and people basically deified him their in stories], then he's "just a man" and not the son of god. 

While it may be widely accepted he existed to a degree, that doenst automatically mean he's the son of god, OR even if he actually was a person, which to be fair some scholars still debate to this very day, because we can't verify it. My understanding is his name is supposed to be Yeshua (Or Joshua) so why aren't we calling him that?

When Atheist say evidence, or at least when I do, I mean "the thing you said happened, didn't. You say it did. Prove it to me". IE if you think Jesus healed a blind man, then how do we prove that? Why has it never 100% happened again, despite what people claim, and how come we can't recreate this? That's the point here. Atheists want, nay NEED, legitmate verifiable evidence and not "I have a book here, that says so". Just because a book is written by real people, doesn't mean it's full of facts.

Nobody is moving the goal posts, you just keep trying to score a goal with the wrong kind of ball.

Worth checking this link for info:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_f...sus_Christ

Particularly
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_f...n_evidence

Which lists the various reasons why we can't really accept anything in the NT as evidence for almost anything, with only very things coming within an acceptable date range of those to be of relevant age to when these writings are dated.