There has to be a cause to the universe, everything come from something not nothing. If you have nothing you will only have nothing you won't magically get something. The same with the universe. People try to use quantum fluctuations to justify that something can come from nothing, but we don't understand that much about quantum mechanics to say that, and as far as we know quantum fluctuations may be coming from something rather than nothing, also scientists have yet to create a single cell. A simple cell requires 3 things proteins, RNA, and DNA the three need each other to create a cell that can reproduce otherwise evolution can't even start. We have only created amino acids in the laboratory both left handed and right handed, however for a protein to form it must be only left handed and much more than we created. The chances for a cell to create itself out of chance is the same as the chance a tornado sweeping through a junk yard creates a airplane, in other words it is impossible, Therefore there has to be a creator who is more powerful and more intelligent than us and is eternal therefore uncreated and start of the universe because there has to be a starting point to everything to get the system going and God is that starting point because the atheist can't even come up with an alternative explanation to everything and life
God is the Creator, Creator of everything, including time and space, which makes up the boundaries of this universe. Because the Creator created time and space, it is not bound by it, therefore, God, or the Creator, does not exist WITHIN this universe. And this universe is a finite, physical world, and the Creator is outside it, therefore the Creator is not physical, but metaphysical, or a spiritual entity beyond the realm of our human understandings.
This universe has been proven finite, therefore, it had a beginning. All things that had beginnings were created or brought into existence by a cause, the cause was the Creator of course, that created this universe, that brought it into existence, and evolved it in stages and formed everything perfectly and magnificently. Many great scholars and philosophers and scientists in the past, including Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton believed that God existed, and they had logical and rational reasons for it, as I am presenting now.
These are just basics. There has to be a creator of this massive illusion that we live in, it is impossible (except with a closed mind), to say that this universe, the condition that it is in now, was not intelligently crafted, and was brought into existence from absolutely nothing.
If that were the case, the same laws would still apply now. Why don't random elephants just pop into existence in random places? We can see that there are laws that govern this universe, who designed these laws in the first place? The Mastermind of course! God is that mastermind.
Evolution could not have continued on without the one controlling it, the one who planned it all from the beginning, the one who perfected it, the one who slowed it down and sped it up.
God is The Source of everything, it is impossible to deny. All of the knowledge that we have regarding this universe and everything in it, is from God, the Creator, Himself, as He designed, constructed, and perfected this universe. Evolved it, and one day, will bring it to its end, whenever He wills. There is no shadow of a doubt that He has full knowledge of this universe and everything in it.
Not only does the Creator have full knowledge of it, His power and reign stretches forth even beyond the edges of the universe. He is The Omnipotent, The Omnipresent, and The Omniscient.
He is the Transcendent. He is beyond this universe, and infinitely beyond us. God is Eternal, an infinite being. The universe is finite, and we are part of the universe, we are also finite. It will come to an end, just as it had come into existence. But God is forever, God exists without a place, without a time period, without relations. God is One.
Similar questions of possibility have been asked at various points in history... About flight, curvature of the earth, center of the universe, etc. The mere fact that "compelling evidence" has not YET been discovered does not mean that it could never be introduced and/or recognized. At one time flight was viewed as magic, then science fiction; now we recognize it as science fact. "God" is currently recognized as a variation on magic. Science fiction fans will recognize an omnipotent life form from Star Trek as the being known as "Q". One day we might come in contact with "God" in a manner similar to the characters in Star Trek. It is entirely possible that at various points in history these encounters have already occurred.
Compelling evidence (henceforth "it") may or may not currently exist.
If it DOES NOT currently exist, it may one day.
If/when it DOES exist, it may or may not be within the range of our perception.
If/when it is within the range of our perception, we may not be technologically capable to perceive it yet. We may never be technologically capable to perceive it.
For these reasons, the lack of evidence supporting an argument that states "invisible item X exists", cannot be used to show that said argument is false, only that it is unsupported by currently recognizable facts. Conversely the argument that "invisible item X does NOT exist" is invalid and can never be valid.
It depends on how you define evidence.
I have heard compelling arguments for the existence of a god.
Some of these arguments, such as the Cosmological Argument, are yet to be effectively refuted.
Indeed, there have been a great many refutations, but nearly all generally demonstrate a lack of understanding of what the Cosmological Argument actually means -- such as the 'What caused God?' argument. Dawkins is particularly cringe-worthy.
These arguments, while logically sound, do not always lend themselves well to empirical testing. Metaphysical claims are, after all, rather difficult to physically test. In the sense that 'evidence' constitutes physical, falsifiable, empirically observable data, then I am yet to see compelling evidence. William Craig claims that there is compelling (and I assume falsifiable) evidence for the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth. I haven't read into it nor do I know where his sources come from, however.
If the skies opened up and a giant man with a white beard spoke to thousands of people in a booming yet angelic voice and 500 people caught it on video this would be compelling evidence. I am sure this would convince a large number of people to believe in god. However just because it is compelling does not mean that everyone would accept it. A lot of people would call it a hoax, some would say it was aliens, etc etc. Compelling evidence? Yes, to many. Proof? No.
If you meant "could anything we have today count as compelling evidence that a god exists?", then no. There is not a shred of any objective, verifiable evidence that any deity exists.
If you meant "is it theoretically possible for compelling evidence of a god to come out?" then sure. If some day a deity pops out of the sky and introduces itself, and this is objectively recorded and verified and not a single natural cause can be found to contradict it, that might be compelling.
But as it stands, no. There is not even any relatively good evidence for any gods.
Nobody in history has proven that God isn't real. Nobody in history has proven God is real either. We can't know. The Bible is not compelling evidence. The Bible is a book! The Bible cannot ptove anything about God's existence. There is more evidence to suggest he doesn't exist than evidence that he does. If you have any, please tell me. It most likely is wrong. We can't prove for100% certainty that God is or isn't real. I lean toward him not being real, however; because there's more evidence to suggest that he isn't real than evidence that suggests he is real.
In my opinion, there most likely could not be anything that I could even conceive of that would qualify as being conclusive or even overly compelling evidence for the existence of an actual deity, because absolutely everything that a god might conceivably try to do to demonstrate its existence to us would by its very nature have a more plausible naturalistic explanation: extremely advanced alien civilizations doing experiments, some inexplicable anomaly at the quantum level, the idea that we are all living in some kind of computer simulation, that we were simply hallucinating, etc. All of these possibilities are by their very nature more plausible than a god because they are all indistinguishable from anything that a god could try to do, and they are all non-supernatural.
Theoretically god could simply appear to every human simultaneously, speaking in their native languages, throw some manna at them or something, maybe bust out a miracle or two (turning the oceans to beer would be a nice touch), raise all the dead, heal the sick, etc. So I guess the answer is, yes, that would qualify as compelling evidence that a god exists.
I'm not holding my breath, though, and I can't reward a question this poorly worded by agreeing with it.