Long story short: Depends on what line of reasoning can be considered "legitimate proof", but given various observations in science and philosophy ("fine-tuning" of the universe, origin of objective morality, cause of the universe et cetera) it is perfectly reasonable to deduce the necessary existence of God.
Prophecy. Yeah, yeah. I know there are idiots who claim it's all open ended and generalized predictions, But there are thousands of prophecies in the Bible that are detailed, and some of them include names and dates. The Bible is 100 percent accurate, when it comes to prophecy. Anyone who says otherwise is willfully ignorant.
Yes, there have been numerous excavations, which have indeed uncovered evidence of many of the events, which transpired during the Old Testament, as well as immense accuracy of the facts written in the Bible.
The fact that something cannot come from nothing. If God didn't exist then we would have a infinite circle of caused causes and an uncaused cause. Nothing would exist because nothing cannot cause itself to occur. But things do exist! So there must be a first cause, or mover, what we call God.
The universe has a divine creator not an unexplainible explosion.
No! Not just "no" but hell no.
Actually, the only 'proof' on the existence of god(s) is faith. But logically and scientifically, there's no single proof supporting the cause for God. For example, let's begin with the leading argument for God's existence: the teleological argument. Since the universe is perfectly designed, goes the famous argument, therefore there is a god who created it. In other words, there must be a cause that caused the universe, and that cause happens to be god. Actually, those who use that argument miss that there can be anything behind the perfect design of the universe (an inanimate force like gravity maybe?). And by assuming that designer of the universe is god, it gives us many outcomes. Is there one god? or maybe a supreme god along with his companions as featured in Greek mythology, for instance. And if there's one god which version of monotheism is the right one? Judaism, Christianity or Islam? Sikhism, Baha'ism or Mormonism? Or maybe there is one God with different incarnations that happen to be three in Christian creed, and scores in case of Hindu belief? Such a tough call to make. I'm not here to attack religious beliefs or god(s) or even argue for atheism or agnosticism. But i'm objectionably saying that we cannot use logical arguments as a proof of God because it's a matter of faith and metaphysics. And as Immanuel Kant said, such things go beyond human reason.
there is absolutely no proof of gods or allah's existence. absolutely anyone idiot could write the bible or quran from scratch, the bible is rewritten all the time. faith doesn't prove anything because they believe because they are repeatedly told religion is true and the more times people are told religion is true the more they believe it. religion is indoctrination to believe something without proof. and the entire idea of hell is to scare people into accepting religion with no proof since fear can make people irrational and illogical.
You don't need proof to believe in a God. It also depend on the definition. God is not something to prove because people defend this "God" without proof. Well, if everyone is claiming that God is the same there will obviously be different interpretations of it and so you can never get to a clear strong definition of God.
I believe "god" was invented to propagate laws and instill fear if one didn't obey the laws of god.
If there is, I haven't seen it and I've almost countless debates between the religious and the irreligious.