The nature of evidence

[downbeatplumb]

---

1. First, there must be a clear, unambiguous definition of the thing you're trying to provide evidence for. How would we know when we'd "found" it? Most God claims do not get past this point.

2. There needs to be some sort of evidence taken from reality which, ideally:

A) Can be examined independently
B) Can be examined directly (as directly as possible, without simply relying on other people's accounts)
C) Should be repeatable and verifiable
D) Should establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the existence of exactly the entity described in point 1, as directly as possible (not by trying to exclude other possibilities)

What does not count as credible evidence (in my opinion):

-Anecdotes, written or verbal (regardless of how many) [This covers story books such as the bible, and people's "personal experiences"]

-Philosophical arguments not backed by supporting evidence [Attempts to show something "must logically exist" without ever verifying it]

Think what it would take to convince you that there's a magical goblin living in my water tank. When you decide what kind of thing would suffice, you're probably pretty close.

http://youtu.be/inw1fNItjdU

---

Could you please describe what you mean by Anecdotes?  What distinguishes anecdotes from testimony of evidence?

I went to the pub and met Angelina Jolie who begged me for sex, is an unsupported anecdote. It is unsupported and may be entirely fictional. 
I met Angelina Jolie last night, you saw me leave remember. Is still dubious but has a little more going for it, could be any bit of rough he took home though.
Here's a sex tape of me and Angelina where you can clearly see both of us, it is date stamped and look that's my bedroom, I have DNA evidence on the mattress. is stronger evidence. 
So without supporting evidence you have zip really.