That would be awesome but, until we get that evidence, what is your current “belief” (or whatever word you want to use)?

Wee first of all, one of the elementary concepts I keep expounding, here and elsewhere, is that the word "belief" does not belong in rigorous discourse full stop. The reason being that we have a large body of observational evidence, pointing to the fact that belief, certainly as practised b supernaturalists, consists of nothing more than uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions. Which is diametrically opposed to the proper rules of discourse, about which I have expounded much both here and elsewhere.

Quite simply, the moment one has evidence to support a given postulate, belief becomes superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.

Meanwhile, with respect to the origin of the universe, my view is that while we do not yet enjoy the emergence of an evidentially supported postulate on this matter, past precedent makes it increasingly likely that the answer will be found in testable natural processes. Courtesy of the fact that testable natural processes have been determined to be sufficient to explain ever larger classes of entities and phenomena, as science progresses. The universe would be throwing us a curve ball of truly cosmic dimensions, if that precedent was overturned in this instance.

If its i dont know then also also fine just wondering if its something other than that.

The simple answer is indeed, at the moment, I don't know. But what I do know, is that whenever scientists have formulated postulates in the past, we haven't had to wait very long before someone devises a means of testing those postulates, and determining conclusively whether or not said postulates are in accord with observational data. The scientific method has been singularly reliable in this respect. Whenever science has been called upon to deliver the goods, deliver it has, by the supertanker load. Mythologies and their assertions, on the other hand, have been singularly unreliable at delivering the goods, even with respect to those assertions that are found to be testable. I am aware of mythological assertions that are not merely plain, flat, wrong, but absurd and fatuous in the light of modern knowledge. The idea that said assertions were the product of a fantastically gifted entity, responsible for fabricating an entire universe from scratch, is a complete non-starter. Any entity genuinely possessing such gifts, would have known that these assertions were ridiculous, and taken robust steps to eliminate them from any text it had control over.

One cannot even erect the excuse that these assertions constitute some form of simplification of the actual state of affairs, permitting basic comprehension thereof by readers with a limited factual repertoire. If that were the case, the assertions in question would be facile, but not essentially wrong. Instead, the assertions that persist in various mythologies, purporting to describe what can be considered scientific or historical fact, are in some cases so ludicrous, that they do not even rise to the level of competence required to be properly wrong.

That last point requires expansion, in order to place it on a properly robust footing. An error, whilst being an error, can be categorised as a competent error, if some effort was exerted to try and construct the resulting erroneous statement, to be in accord either with observation or appropriate past deduction. Students of pure mathematics or the physical sciences commit many such errors during their learning process, but those errors arose against a background of successful prior acquisition of relevant concepts. Those students stumbled at a particular hurdle because they had not yet mastered a new concept, or had committed a simple error in a stepwise process of deduction that compromised the whole. On the other hand, an error arising from outright fabrication, with no traceable attempt to subject said fabrication to observational or deductive constraints, can be classed as an incompetent error. Mythologies are replete with this latter category of error: ex recto fabrications that made no attempt to ground themselves in the world of real observables or properly constituted abstract deduction.

Errors of this sort cannot possibly be considered to be simplifications of the actual postulates operating in the universe, pretty much by definition, and apologetic attempts to categorise them in this manner are doomed to failure from the start. Any genuinely fantastically gifted entity, responsible for presenting a body of text intended to be treated as factual, would banish such fabrications, along with competent errors, wholesale from that body of text. This has clearly not happened. The assertion that those bodies of text, those mythologies, are the product of fantastically gifted "creators" of one sort or another, is untenable on this elementary basis alone, before we consider any other objections. If humans, exerting diligent effort, can make comprehensible such daunting concepts as Calabi-Yau manifolds, then this exercise should be easily within the remit of any genuinely existing fantastically gifted entities of the sort asserted to exist in mythologies. The absence of proper proofreading and proper elimination of nonsense, alone destroys any pretence that the requisite mythologies deserve to be considered as bodies of "knowledge".

On the basis of that contrast, between the demonstrable reliability of scientific endeavour, and the demonstrable unreliability of mythological assertion, the reason for my choice should be obvious on the most elementary level.

The problem Searching for truth, is that you indicate you prefer nice stories that please you. Unfortunately, the real world and truth may not be so nice and deliver a story that agrees with you.

And for many atheists, demanding proof is a method towards finding the truth.

What do you not understand. IT IS NOT OUR JOB TO DO YOUR WORK FOR YOU. When you come up with something that can withstand critical inquiry let us know. NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL. Either put up or shut up. THE DEFAULT POSITION IS TO NOT BELIEVE A CLAIM UNTIL THERE IS SUFFICIENT PROOF. It's not our fault that you keep coming up empty.

Fine - Your god does none of those things. Men save children, prevent rapes, and stop murders - when does your god's trip of the universe begin, sign me up/.

@ SfT

It has been presented many times and has been constantly rejected which is why I am asking people what evidence they would be willing to accept or at least consider.

Sft, you have NEVER presented any evidence for the existence of any deity. let alone the one you espouse.
Let me refresh your memory:
You cannot "logic" your way to proving a god.
A holy book is only evidence that the claim exists. It is not evidence in or of itself for the existence of the alleged god. That has been shown to you many times.

As those are the only things you have brought forward then we must conclude the statement in blockquotes is a lie.

Please answer Sheldon's questions. Then we may judge the value of your alleged deity.