Vi har ikke bevis.

Norwegian does not use do-support the way English does.

In English, you say:

• We do not have evidence

But in Norwegian, you simply negate the main verb directly:

• Vi har ikke bevis

So:

• har = have / has
• ikke = not

A very literal breakdown is:

• Vi = we
• har = have
• ikke = not
• bevis = evidence / proof

In a normal Norwegian main clause, the finite verb usually comes early in the sentence, and ikke typically comes after that finite verb.

So:

• Vi har ikke bevis = correct

This is a very common Norwegian pattern:

• Jeg kommer ikke
• Han vet ikke
• Vi har ikke tid

A useful rule is:

• In a main clause: the finite verb comes before ikke
• In a subordinate clause: ikke usually comes before the finite verb

Compare:

• Vi har ikke bevis = main clause
• ... fordi vi ikke har bevis = subordinate clause

Because Norwegian often leaves out the article when talking about something in a general or indefinite way, especially after verbs like ha.

Here, bevis means evidence / proof in a general sense, so no article is needed:

• Vi har ikke bevis

If you meant one specific proof, you would usually say:

• Vi har ikke et bevis = We do not have a proof / one piece of proof

But that sounds more specific.

The version without an article is the natural general statement:

• We have no evidence / proof

It can be understood as either:

• uncountable: evidence / proof in general
• or plural: proofs / pieces of evidence

That is one reason this sentence feels natural and broad.

Also, bevis is one of those nouns whose indefinite singular and indefinite plural forms look the same:

• et bevis = a proof
• bevis = proofs / evidence

So in this sentence, context decides how you understand it.

Yes. That is also correct and very common.

Both mean roughly the same thing:

• Vi har ikke bevis
• Vi har ingen bevis

But there is a small difference in feel:

• ikke = negates the whole clause: do not have
• ingen = means no / none, and directly modifies the noun

So:

• Vi har ikke bevis = We do not have evidence
• Vi har ingen bevis = We have no evidence

Many learners find ingen bevis easier to connect to English no evidence.

Not as a normal standalone statement.

For a main clause, Norwegian wants the finite verb in the second position, so you say:

• Vi har ikke bevis

But vi ikke har bevis can appear inside a subordinate clause:

• De sier at vi ikke har bevis = They say that we do not have evidence
• Fordi vi ikke har bevis = Because we do not have evidence

So the short version is:

• Vi har ikke bevis = correct main clause
• vi ikke har bevis = possible only inside a larger sentence

A careful pronunciation is approximately:

• Vi → vee
• har → haar
• ikke → IK-keh
• bevis → beh-VEES

A rough full version:

• vee haar IK-keh beh-VEES

A few notes:

• ikke has stress on the first syllable
• bevis has stress on the second syllable
• the r in har varies by dialect
• the final e in ikke is usually a weak vowel, like uh or eh

Here is the structure:

• Vi = subject
• har = finite verb, present tense
• ikke = negation
• bevis = object

So the sentence pattern is:

subject + verb + negation + object

That pattern is very common in Norwegian:

• Jeg spiser ikke kjøtt
• Hun liker ikke kaffe
• Vi har ikke bevis

Yes. har is the present tense of å ha = to have.

Related forms:

• å ha = to have
• har = have / has
• hadde = had
• har hatt = have had

So if you wanted other tenses, you could say:

• Vi hadde ikke bevis = We did not have evidence
• Vi har ikke hatt bevis = We have not had evidence

In your sentence, har shows that the statement is in the present.