What specific evidence would people require to believe in God's existence?

Can we get an idea of what this evidence, extraordinary or otherwise, actually might be?Additionally, the way things work from a burden of proof standpoint, is that the individual making the claim must provide adequate information regarding the evidence they are putting forth. If one looks at how things operate in a legal situation, the prosecutor has the burden of proof to leverage evidence to verify their claim of guilt. It is not up to the jury to simply accept it; the jury takes the skeptical stance and the prosecutor must convince them. I don't think too many prosecutors would get far in their profession if they simply assumed the jury absolutely must accept their stance as 'fact' without providing a convincing argument as well.

I cannot comment on previous threads, but you did indicate within this thread that the evidence existed. Posters, including myself, then asked for examples. As Ringo indicated, you can refrain from the extraordinary claims if you wish and focus merely on the standard claims.If you feel it is futile to present this evidence, then that is your prerogative. But if that is the case, why venture comments on the existence of evidence that you refuse to present?So I am asking, in sincerity, what is this 'evidence' you are positing that verifies the veracity of specific biblical accounts?

Why is the Koran not considered as part of the historicity to demonstrate the existence of god? Or the Torah?Additionally, Buddhist philosophy makes no mention of a personal god, which would seem to indicate it is not providing instruction on the assumption of the reality of god.
Also, various forms of Hinduism as well as older religions such as Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Mayan or Norse based views posited the notion of more than one god. I am curious how they are providing instruction on the reality of a singular god when their basic tenets denote multiple deities.

That is actually not correct. The Koran is actually very historical in that it is a first hand account by the prophet Mohammed himself. Fair enough. I would disagree. Buddhism has a code of ethics, but it also has a strong spiritual core that puts forth notions of reincarnation, and the eternality of the living spirit. Which would put it squarely in the religion camp. This is also not correct. Multiple texts which invoke pagan gods such as Athena, Zeus also provide historical accounts. For example, the Homeric writings regarding the Trojan War are now deemed historical.

And how is this different from copious references in the bible of specific individuals receiving their 'instructions' from angels, burning bushes, and so forth?Additionally, of course he plagiarized. The Koran is a derivative of the original Torah. Which, by the way, the Bible plagiarized. Belief in a deity is not a prerequisite of a religion. From the standpoint of the Homeric writings, yes. Various heroes in the Trojan war were either demigods or influenced by gods. Achilles was the son of a goddess. As was Ajax. And my own moniker (Diomedes) is based off of a hero in the war that was possessed by the spirit of Athena. Evidence to counter your initial claim is not a distraction. It is evidence.