I’m talking about the Christian God. In the Bible in breaks the laws of physics all the time to demonstrate his power.
And you know this, how?
If part of the definition is “supernatural”, then it is logically impossible, as has been exhaustively demonstrated on this message board, and many other places. So, statements about such a god are basically meaningless, except as a counterfactual. For a “natural” god, which is presumably an advanced alien, the statement “there is no evidence for god” is meaningful, as it’s easily falsifiable - just present some evidence.
I agree. And yet, I’ve seen some people insist that, when it comes to claims about God’s existence, the only type of evidence that is acceptable is “scientific” evidence. 
You’ve laid out the options nicely.
In options #1 and #2, if someone rejects the evidence and wants to continue the discussion, then that person needs to provide a rationale for that rejection, and that rationale needs to consistent with the rejection and acceptance of evidence for all other claims. With option #3, there is evidence – it’s just a matter of evaluating whether it is sufficient and conclusive, or, in simple terms “good enough”. When it comes to the existence of God, theists say that the evidence is “good enough” (some say God’s existence is self-evident), and non-theists say that it falls short. But there is evidence.
Throughout history and today, billions of people have believed in various deities, and they’ve been able to form civilizations and to create art and technology. To say that there has never been any evidence for the existence of God/gods is to say that the vast majority of the human population has never had any idea about the role of evidence in formulating conclusions. And, is *that *a reasonable conclusion?
The sum total of “evidence” for all gods does not equal the sum total of "evidence’ for any one particular god.
Please tell us the characteristics of the god we are discussing here, so that we might proceed.
I find it fascinating that we have people trying to fathom the unfathomable. How can one who has only seen one side of a wall comment on what it looks like on the other side? Even if we demystify the subject and reduce it to “intelligent design”. All of creation and all of each person speaks to something infinite and transcendant. Even the most cogent logic accepts there has to be something infinite outside of the finite. Time is finite because it has to have a beginning point.
Hamster’s comment about an orderly world are both right and wrong. The order he speaks of are the absolute cogence of God’s natural laws. However, he is wrong in that there is no order in a God who continues to love a people that get on message boards and flip him off.
I find it interesting. We scream for free will. God gives it to them. The people take the gift and perpetuate unspeakable evil and savagery on each other. Then we blame God for how the people use the gift of free will. When will we take responsibility for, as Rush’s Neal Peart said, “the world we wrought”?
The impeccable natural order speak to the perfection and transcendence of God. “All creation cries out the glory of the LORD” says the Scripture. But I will let Carl Sagan, an atheist, actually make a lucid point for me. When his character in CONTACT was being interrogated by the panel for selection to journey in the machine, and she was asked if she believed in God; she answered that she didn’t understand the relevance of the question. One of the panelist wisely noted, that 98 percent of the people on Earth believe in a Supreme Being, diety, …God.
How could the other 2% be so haughty as to believe they have a slice of Truth that the rest of the world doesn’t.
If you don’t wish to fathom the question, you don’t need to. In the meantime, the rest of us will proceed.
Just to pick one point out of your post revelator771, time does not require a beginning. There’s no philosophical, scientific, or logical reason why space or time must be bounded. That’s not to say they’re not, but it’s not something that can be assumed.
This is a common enough sentiment, but I don’t get it. In general, why can’t you prove a negative? In general, what is wrong with the approach of deducing testable things about the negative statement, and then testing them? For example, if you want to prove there is no Antarctica, you could propose sailing there and looking for it.
In the particular case of God, you have to be careful about what “God” entails, but plenty of versions of God have features that are at least in principle testable. For example, if God is the creator of the universe, and we if science somehow proves that the universe always existed and was therefore never created, hasn’t it also proven there is no God by that definition?
Certainly, “God” can be an elusive moving target, and that would make it hard to prove he doesn’t exist. But the problem is not that you can’t prove negatives, is it?
Can you prove that? 
If he proved himself to exist, it wouldn’t be about “belief”. It wouldn’t be about faith. It would be about “oh”. Or more accurately “WOW!”
So, the Plagues weren’t his style? Parting the Red Sea wasn’t his style. Stopping the progress of the sun wasn’t his style? Raising the dead wasn’t his style?
Believers should really try reading the Bible some time.
I have started a thread for the purpose of nailing down this question here.
Anyone claiming to present evidence needs to define the God supported by that evidence. Thunder and lightning on Mt. Olympus might be evidence for Zeus and not Jehovah.
I don’t know who thinks we demand only scientific evidence. Some historical evidence might be nice also, and is just as lacking as the scientific evidence.
Well, there’s your problem. Don’t expect anyone else to come of with a coherent definition (that’s compatible with reality and does anything useful and is compatible with what, say, more than a million people would call a god) either; it hasn’t happened in the last 2000 years, and my guess is that it’ll never happen.
The Abrahamic God’s “faith” has never been about His existence, it’s always been about trust, as in trusting Jehova over other the competing gods. And I daresay I wouldn’t trust the guy not to pick my pocket when my back is turned.
And? Faith is just foolishness, and it isn’t a recommendation for that god that he demands his followers be foolish.
More like “Yuck”.
How so?
When babies are drowned by tsunamis … how is that their fault?
Your solution to the Problem of Evil is particularly nasty. It cruelly blames the victims of tragedy for the horrible things that happen to them. In order to perpetuate the idea of a benevolent God, you’re willing to suggest that drowned babies got what they deserved. What a noxious ideology!
The definition of “God” is exactly what you want it to be. IOW, to each his own.
Most clumsy Americans believe in a hypocrite, which follows suit for most.
Many people have claimed that prayer to this god is what really saved Gabby Giffords. When have we seen a headline saying that education and talent from the neurologists are what saved someone from a gunshot wound to the head?
At the same time, the same people who claim that prayer saved her also pray Loughner gets the death penalty. If and when he does, credit goes to a god and not to a jury or judge.
Since reading and studying the bible for years, the bible clearly shows us a merciless, vengeful, jealous, lying and seriously demented god who could care less about passion and forgiveness.
But, oh, that’s the OLD testament. He’s changed! Really! I prayed for work so I could afford to buy drinks for myself and friends on Super Sunday and I got some, so he’s really real! If I was a modern believer, I might actually think that.
My point is that when you are at a church, you’re worshipping your OWN god, your own fantasy. The person next to you-- be it a stranger or your wife for over 50 years-- neither of you are praying to the same deity.
So I suppose that a good definition of “God” is an almighty and powerful being that acts exactly as I interpret him.
And what better type of evidence is there to prove the existence of a particular type of being?
And I’m 
as to why you put the word scientific in parentheses.