Onagar, as I acknowledged, there is dispute over what would count as evidence. You choose to see nothing as evidence for God. I choose to se several points as evidence.
For example, the fact that something (our universe) exists, rather than nothing existing at all. Where did it all come from? Given that there is strong evidence of a definite start point for our universe existing, why did it happen? Why do the scientific laws that allow the process of the universe unfolding as it does exist? Could scientific laws governing how matter behaves have created themselves? Our world operates in a predominantly predictable, law-like manner - did that happen as a result of random chance from a position of no scientific laws at all? Or is there something more behind it all?
Second, the general belief in some sort of ethics. I havn't met anyone yet who believed there was absolutely no such thing as right or wrong. We can all argue the toss over different examples, but we all have at least one thing we would declare to be wrong. Not just casually wrong, or wrong for some people, but downright wrong, no matter what your cultural position or when it happened or whatever. In order for that judgement to have any lasting force it has to have some agency transcending human opinion. If ethics were just people's attitudes then you could justify anything if you managed to persuade enough people that somehow it was permissable. Note that I am not arguing in favour of religious moralism here (goodness knows we get it wrong enough of the time), just that for any ethical system to have a stronger validity than the shifting sands of human opinion requires something transcending humanity.
As a third point I could also point to the historical record of the life of Christ and the early church for a specifically Christian argument about God and the nature of God. To go into detail here would take some time (I need to get my kids in the bath!), but it does count as evidence, even if you would dispute it.
I could also start talking about the existence of consciousness, but again that deserves a thread in itself.
The subjective experience of different believers could also be admitted as evidence. And there are a lot of believers (which I will come onto later). But once you recognise that we don't operate solely on objective verification for all decisions we make (see my earlier post), then listening to people's stories and experiences becomes valid. (This form of evidence is obviously to be used differently to logical, scientific, or historical evidence, but it still counts as evidence).
Finally I would point to the fact that throughout history and across the 6 billion residents of the world at this moment, a belief in God, Gods or the supernatural is held by the overwhelming majority. Educated and uneducated, rich and poor, people of every colour. To post up that clearly anyone who doesn't share your view does so without any evidence is a massive generalisation. And a view that I suspect you have formed on very, very limited data. Have you consulted 70/80/90% of the world (depending on your religious census data) on how they arrived at your views, or have you just seen a few rednecks on the TV, a few wide eyed preachers in the shopping centre, a few insecure fundies on a bulletin board and projected from this tiny minority onto the majority of all poeple who have ever lived?