Being that God is everywhere and in everything and that all truth and being is dependent upon God, there isn’t any unbiased information or uninterpreted truth that can be used to argue against the Creator.
People are shocked when they ask if we’d accept any evidence against the existence of God, and we say “No.”, as if that kind of answer were irrational or avoiding the problems inherent in reason and human claims to knowledge, but that’s a misunderstanding of the question.
The question is a lot like asking if I’d accept any evidence against my own existence, or any evidence against there being truth, or any evidence against there being evidence.
With that, we understand that many Christians take the view that we believe in God because it’s more probable than not that He exists and so we have a rational duty to believe that He does. I can’t disagree in principal; it is certainly more probable that not that God exists, but everything true is more probable than not so that doesn’t get us anywhere very interesting.
Our reasons for believing in God aren’t of that character and so it’s that we know that God exists that is the basis for our believing that he does. More, if we do know, then for someone to ask that we consider not knowing for the purpose of interpreting the evidence through another universe that we know does not exist seems to bring in a bias that can’t possibly arrive at a beneficial result?
There’s a lot of talk about “doubt” of late, usually through the thought of Lewis, about its priority and acceptability (and who wants to argue with Lewis?) but the Bible speaks of doubt as a form of either ignorance or sin, or both, and a blindness of heart that clouds every issue and every apprehension, and so not best used as a means of sifting truth from error.
This is just to say that if we do indeed know with certainty that God exists (and certainly certainty is valuable, available and the normal state of Christian faith) then to presume upon God that we do not actually know, but only think it probable might be an institutionalization a doubt that squanders the surety of our intimate knowledge of God.
And so is there evidence? It might be more that everything, positively everything is evidence and negatively everything is evidence by the inference and contrary relation because God is all in all and all things exist by him and for him.
But make no mistake, we know.
We know him and are known by him, and so we believe in him.