The ultimate test of any set of beliefs (Abrahamic or otherwise) is: Does this correspond with reality and my experience?
If the historical data that can be extracted from the Quran or the Torah corresponds with what we (think we) know about history, then those points of correspondence are "physical" evidence regarding the historicity of the documents in question. Certainly if a supposedly ancient document is in disagreement with the facts, then it is somewhat suspect, particularly if it is supposed to be reliable in its assertions about supernatural things.
For any given person, you should try to ascertain what kind of "evidence" is admissible and compelling. If he disregards personal testimony of contemporary eyewitnesses, then he may as well treat all history as if it is not something that can be known. On the other hand, if he judges an eyewitness's testimony as worth considering, then eyewitness reports of miracles, signs, or other demonstrations of supernatural endorsement of the message or messenger ought to qualify as "evidence from history."
Whether any given person will accept that evidence as compelling is another matter entirely. If someone wants to [dis]believe something badly enough, he will always find a way, even if it's ridiculous. Consider this conversation between Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins. Dawkins denies any possibility of a supernatural being creating the universe (and man). He allows for the possibility of aliens to have created humans, though, as long as those aliens came about from purely naturalistic processes.
BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?
DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
In the end, all beliefs about the supernatural, including beliefs about there being no supernatural creator, rest on unprovable assertions that are accepted for emotional reasons (as opposed to purely logical—logical conclusions rest on assertions that are accepted, not proven, and in the end, it boils down to whether one likes something or whether it makes sense to them, and neither of these is purely rational). If the goal is to provide some sort of compelling argument, it will have to address the emotional "needs" of the individual, and compelling emotional arguments will differ a lot from person to person.