Some years ago I had a go at debating some atheists on an online forum. I learnt two things.
1. I'm not very good at debating atheists on an online forum.
2. For some atheists, if not many, it's not really about the lack of evidence for God.
In case you don't know, one of the big cries of the atheist cause is that there is know evidence that God exists. One way this stand is justified is by discrediting anything that might be considered evidence, like the Bible. In one of my debates online the opponent claimed that the Gospels could not be relied on because they were not historically accurate, in particular none of the claimed miracles had any external verification so they could not be regarded as history. I asked, "What if everything else in the Gospel that could be shown as accurate by external verification was shown to be accurate?" (or something like that, it was a long time ago). He's answer was that this would make the miracles even more unbelievable. I was stunned. He basically was saying that if the Gospel were bad history the miracles cannot be believe, and if they were good history they still cannot be believed.
So, for this atheist (and I have found many others who are of the same view), miracles, and therefor God, cannot be true, regardless of the evidence.