That's a broad question, so I'd probably narrow it down to categories. There's literally dozens, but there are some popular ones that have been debated for decades and even centuries now. Start with what's commonly known as the cosmological argument; the beginning of the universe. This wasn't always heavily corroborated by the latest scientific findings (think: Einstein, who is relatively recent, and initially preferred a static model of the universe), but the universe having an absolute beginning is widely accepted now. There's a ton of evidence for that, from both the scientific and philosophy communities. But what does it mean? There's the rub. Something not in or part of the universe caused the universe to come into being, but what? "Something not in or part of the universe" would be one working definition of "supernatural" so I'd argue that it doesn't really matter which view you side with, it technically is "supernatural." Both sides are forced to extrapolate a list of qualities that must necessarily belong to such a cause, but they don't agree on all of them, or who or what it is. One example is Stephen Hawking's view later in his life, that gravity caused the universe to come into being. If you wade through the details of his explanation, what he actually does is assign to gravity nearly all the qualities a religious person would assign to a deity, excepting personhood. So there's a lot of agreement on the evidence, but different conclusions drawn. This is a 50,000 ft. overview....I'm skipping a literal ton here, like I said, it's one of my favorite topics.
A second popular argument is the teleological argument, or what could be called the design argument. The evidence not in dispute is an ever-growing, very long list of characteristics about the universe that are extraordinarily fine-tined for there to be a universe at all, and in particular one that can support life. The meaning, again, is in dispute. Briefly, an atheistic view tends to argue one of two things, either it's blind chance that everything is fine-tuned the way that it is, or they appeal to a multiverse theory, stating that this universe is one of many, possibly an infinite number, and so one of them somewhere was bound to have these characteristics. The theist view will of course argue for a grand designer, so to speak. But they're arguing from the same evidence.
A third popular one is the moral argument. This one is different in a couple of ways. First, it's nearly strictly philosophical as it doesn't appeal to science like the first two. Second, the evidence sort of is and isn't in dispute. What I mean by that is the "evidence" in this case is an objective morality, something that transcends our opinions and is true whether one believes it or not, and atheistic views often deny that while theistic views tend to (not always) affirm it. Where it gets tricky is that when atheist philosophers are really pressed on it, they often do ultimately want to affirm objective morality, meaning they see some things as actually, truly wrong, which are not just matters of opinion, evolution, or societal norms. But they either fail to see the contradiction, or they admit they have a problem and that the problem may not be intractable and shouldn't be given up on. Or put another way, theists frequently argue that there is an objective morality to our existence and that the source is supernatural, whereas atheists frequently argue either there is no objective morality, or that there is, and try to advocate for alternative explanations outside of something supernatural (though they admirably admit shortcomings here, which is why I say their position is sometimes that while they have a problem, they shouldn't give up on it). So it's a little disingenuous to say there's evidence not in dispute in that realm. Nevertheless, there is evidence either side produces for why there is or isn't objective morality, and then of course the different views drawn from either of those positions.
Those are just the most popular 3 areas, in my opinion, where there's evidence--generally agreed upon--but differing conclusions. There are a ton of other areas of arguments with the same thing.....some evidence from some discipline which theists and atheists try to explain in different ways. Alvin Plantinga, formerly of Notre Dame, successfully defended over two dozen arguments in his career, many of which get extremely esoteric and beyond what the average layman can follow. He's just one of many, and of course there are atheistic proponents such as Daniel Dennett and many others, who attempt to tackle the same subjects, the same evidence as it were, and show that atheism more reasonably explains it.
So an argument isn't evidence. Evidence is evidence. I know, I know, it sounds like I'm throwing your big, lost post out the window, but I'm really not.
Okay, so the universe started, and the cosmological argument suggests something started it. But believers like to leap to someONE, which is B.S. But even positing a creator for it all isn't evidence. WHAT creator? Don't know? Not evidence.
.
Teleological argument? Sorry, but that one is embarrassing. See: puddle analogy. Of course this world seems designed, we exist in it. The teleological argument treats the universe like a snapshot and ignores the billions of years of primordial hot garbage. Yes, in the past 100 years, things seem so convenient for us. As if the creators of this sidewalk made a shallow lull so our wet puddles asses fit right in.
You're better than this one.
.
It's funny, the moral argument is where I believe religion was born in the first place. There was no objective morality, just the biggest, baddest got what they wanted. Invent a god that is watching and judging them (unfaslifiable) and that they will be punished after death (unfalsifiable). The warlords were dumb enough to fall for it, and thus religion was born.
It's hard to say there's no objective morality when you're raised in a society with generations of legal morality baked in.
.
But as you've acknowledged, and I give you credit for doing so, is that all of your "evidences" are disputed and maybes. None of it's confirmed. You know what "evidence" means, and none of these is actually evidence. It's possibilities. It's hopefulness. It's want-to.
The next real, tangible evidence for a god will be the first.
