I've made the point that I don't defend "God" as a teleological position of itself, but what I defend is my faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and the glories which followed. If God didn't resurrect Jesus from the dead on the third day, then I've fallen prey to mass delusion or hoax and God's existence (or not) becomes moot point. Likewise, if Jesus actually rose from the dead, then the answer's settled to my satisfaction.
John 20:17 Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
I say that if Jesus rose from the dead, then God is not only real but is known.
Okay, then, where's the proof of Jesus' resurrection? Where's the evidence? I'll now provide my reasoning. I've already established (to my satisfaction) that most scholars, Christian and not, have adduced the existence of a man 'Jesus', and a man 'Paul'. There's simply too much secondary literature around the nascent Christian movement in the centuries that followed. Someone existed and something happened, for all this mass of literary accretia to assemble itself. If Jesus were an absolute 100% literary fabrication it would be quite impressive. Easier for me to think that a bunch of people (like Paul) were convinced of Jesus' Messiah-ship and went around and gained converts and established various congregations.
Pliny the Younger, for example, writes of the Christians in the year 112-113 CE. And Pliny is attested by other witnesses, and believe me [!!] he's no Christian!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_..._on_Christians
For a group following a non-existent person to be that widespread and established in 80 years is less plausible than that someone - Jesus - actually existed. Similarly a person 'Paul' is attested to, in epistle and Acts, and most objective viewers, even non-Christians, think that he actually existed - how else could the faith be spread so far and so firmly? Easier to imagine a Saul the Pharisee from Tarsus being converted and becoming Paul the Apostle to the gentiles, as documented in the NT, than: A) he was a purely literary creation; and B) some other unknown and un-named person(s) did all that heavy lifting and proselytized so widely and successfully.
Like I said earlier, there are also secondary apologetic Christian witnesses like Clement, Irenaeus, Polycarp, all testifying of each other, and Paul, and the Twelve. And of course Paul and the Twelve (i.e. the NT) testify of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. So to imagine that all of this was manufactured whole-cloth some centuries later is less plausible than imagining that the faith, and the faithful, actually existed.
But I'd like to focus in on one apostle: Peter. Did he exist, or was he merely a literary creation? If he was drawn out in so much detail and it's all lies, I'm very impressed -- I've been taken by a hoax but I daresay it's a good one. You have massive detail in four Gospels, in the Acts, the letters of Paul, and the letters of Peter. All fake.... wow, very good. I've been snookered by what is probably the forgery of all time. My bad.
Or, Peter actually existed. And Peter, of course, testified to Christ's resurrection.
Now I come to this: it is easier for me to believe in the existence of Peter the Galilean fisherman than to believe that he was a made-up literary creation. And he testifies that he saw Jesus alive from the dead. Now, that is not in and of itself "evidence" per se, which is why it's called faith. And if someone doesn't believe then they obviously have their reasons. But I believe: I review the NT, in toto, and the secondary literature, such as Pliny, Josephus, Polycarp, Irenaeus, etc and see enough confluence of "witness" that I believe.
Others feel comfortable with "no God" or a different God, well I'm fine with that. I don't think faith is something to be proved in some Descartes-like fashion. Either one believes or they don't. But I think it's worth taking the time and effort to understand, and actually sift through the documents, in the face of others who think differently, and who also sift. Ignoring or pooh-pooh-ing (or threatening) everyone who doesn't agree with your faith doesn't seem very robust.
And there's a great mass of literature to sort through, much of it emanating from the "Second Temple Judaism" era. Late Antiquity, as it were. Daniel Boyarin is another example I use besides Dawkins. The Christians and Jews both don't like him because he doesn't "toe the line" in either camp. But boy does he know his primary source material! You could do worse than hang out for a few hours with Boyarin, whatever your disposition. Whatever you hold dear, he can wreck it in a heartbeat. And I love the guy. He makes my Christian faith so ... enjoyable. Maybe I'm perverse that way, I dunno. But if you survive Boyarin it really puts a bounce in your step.