There isn't a shred of reliable evidence that Yahweh existed outside the imagination of long-dead kingships.

That is a clean, testable claim, which is more than most objections offer. It is also false in a way that is easy to demonstrate, provided we first ask what kind of evidence the claim would count.

1. First, name the standard. "Reliable evidence" is doing enormous work in that sentence and is never defined. If it means evidence no one can dispute, no historical claim of any kind passes, including your own about ancient kingships. If it means evidence that makes a conclusion more probable than its rivals, then there is a great deal of it.

2. Yahweh is not an object in the universe. Paul told the Athenians that God "does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything" (Acts 17:24-25). Demanding that a non-physical creator turn up as a specimen mistakes the claim being made. You cannot photograph the thing that makes photographing possible.

3. The worship of Yahweh is attested outside Israel. The Mesha Stele, a ninth-century Moabite inscription, names Yahweh and his people. The Tel Dan Stele refers to the "house of David." Inscriptions from Kuntillet Ajrud invoke Yahweh. These are not Israelite propaganda; they are neighbors and enemies, which is exactly the kind of attestation historians prefer.

4. That kills the specific claim being made. The objection says Yahweh was the invention of long-dead kingships. The record shows a god worshiped by Moabites, Israelites, and desert travelers by the ninth century BC, with a Davidic dynasty attached. Whatever else that is, it is not a late literary fabrication, and the objection's own premise is what the evidence refutes.

5. There are philosophical arguments, not just inscriptions. The universe began to exist, whatever begins to exist has a cause, so the universe has a cause (Genesis 1:1 states the conclusion; the argument is the work). Fine-tuning of the constants, the existence of objective moral facts, and the hard problem of consciousness are additional data in search of explanation. These are arguments, and they can be attacked, but they cannot be waved away as assertions.

6. There is a historical argument of a specific kind. If God raised Jesus from the dead, Yahweh is not a projection, and that claim is investigable by ordinary historical method. Gary Habermas and Michael Licona argue from a short list of facts conceded across the spectrum: the crucifixion, the disciples' belief that they saw him, the conversion of Paul, and the conversion of James. The resurrection is offered as the best explanation, not as a feeling.

7. Turn the standard on itself. "No reliable evidence" as usually deployed is unfalsifiable: every piece of evidence is reclassified in advance as unreliable, so nothing could ever count against the claim. That is not skepticism, which holds its conclusions loosely enough to be corrected. It is a closed loop wearing skepticism's coat.

8. Proof and evidence are different words. Historical reasoning does not deliver proofs; it delivers inferences to the best explanation, weighed against rivals. Nobody demands a mathematical demonstration that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon. If the standard for God is stricter than the standard for everything else, the standard is the argument.

9. What is honestly contested. The cosmological argument is disputed, fine-tuning is disputed, and Christians disagree about which argument carries the most weight. None of them is a proof, and saying so is not weakness. The claim here is narrower: "not a shred" is false, and the person making it has some reading to do.

10. The knowledge claim is personal. Jesus said that if anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God (John 7:17), and Jeremiah promised that those who seek God with their whole heart will find him (Jeremiah 29:13). That is a claim about a kind of knowledge available only by participation, which is true of most important knowledge and is not a dodge.

The material record shows Yahweh worshiped early and widely, and the arguments from nature and history are real arguments with real defenders. You are free to reject them, but the rejection has to engage them rather than announce that nothing is there.

Sources: William Lane Craig; Reasonable Faith; Robin Collins; Stephen C. Meyer; Gary Habermas.

Related challenges:
• The existence of so many Christian denominations indicates the Bible to be inherently unclear. If truly God’s revelation, could we not expect that He would reveal Himself clearly?
• So you believe in a book full of contradictions, one that endorses slavery, incest, murder, drowning babies, genocide and stoning homosexuals?
• Now if Jesus is God and God cannot be tempted, does it not follow that Jesus cannot be tempted? Yet Matthew 4 clearly presents the temptation of Christ, and thus embroils us in another BIBLICAL CONTRADICTION. Doesn’t it?!