I'd have to know what PA considered excellent evidence that God exists before I can answer that.
That is a very complicated question.
For one thing god seems to have made the mistake of his evidence being easily confused with mental illness. This obviously is a critical mistake. So if I turn around right now and jesus is standing there what do I do? For one thing I don't know what jesus looks like so how do i know it's him? Let's say he identifies himself. Tomorrow I'd probably go to a psychiatrist and tell him what happened. He'd likely tell me to forget it and tell me to come back in 3 months for a follow up visit. Let's say during that time jesus appears 4 more times. Now I go back and tell the doctor jesus appeared to me 4 more times and he diagnoses me as mentally ill. Who do I believe? The doctor or some unknown person who inexplicably appears?
Of course if I said to jesus "let's go outside" and I introduced him to my neighbors who agreed "someone" was standing there that would at least prove I am not mentally ill, but it still doesn't prove who this character is.
Also if I turned around and someone was standing behind me, I would be startled, and not knowing what jesus looks like I might assume an intruder and attack him and call 911.
This brings up the problem of miracles in general. As I have argued previously miracles are evidence of nothing. This seems to be another critical mistake on the part of god. Let's say I saw the resurrection. What does it prove about christianity? Nothing. Does it prove that the christian god exists? No. Does it prove god is omnipotent? No. Does it prove god is omniscient? No. What does it prove? Nothing. It would just be a head scratching unexplainable event that proves nothing. Evidence for it to be good has to be 1) easily believable and 2) evidentially connected to whatever is being proven. Miracles are impossible events, the exact opposite of easily believable.
Let's say my friend says to me "I was at the beach today" and he shows me a bag that contains shells, a dead starfish, and an empty crab shell. Then he shows me he has sand in his shoes. This would be good evidence he really was at the beach. The evidence is easily believable. And it is logically related to his claim because shells, starfish, crab shells, and sand are all things you can get at the beach.
Let's say my friend says to me "I was at the beach today" and then he levitates in the air 3 feet. That would be surprising and not understandable but not good evidence he was at the beach. First it seems like a strange unbelievable event. Second there is no logical connection to that event and him being at the beach.
I guess god would have to present himself to me. Identify and explain himself to me. Then present convincing evidence that what he says is true. Other than that I don't know. I don't know what god is so I don't know what good evidence would be for his existence.
I have argued in the past though, and it is true, if god is omniscient and he has some message he wants me to believe, then he knows what argument would convince me. Let's call it argument A. God could simply present A to me. I would consider it, and be convinced. My freewill is not violated because presenting good evidence to someone does not take away their freewill. And the problem is solved. Why not simply present A?
