Anecdotal Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

An I can apply this to anything which you do not provide actual physical evidence....correct?

If so... why do people call me names, and attack my character, when I hold them to the same standards

You are free to believe, or disbelieve, based on any standard you want.

I'm not sure about your character.  I can only say based on my own idea-- that it seems to me your interest in the subject of evidence is probably that you want to lower the standard of evidence people hold with regard to religious claims, so that they will accept testimony as evidence of God.

Who is it; who keeps bringing religion and God into the discussion? I am trying to establish and discuss the general principles involved with the epistemology of testimony. It would seem to follow, that we need to do this, before either applying them to, or discussing and justifying any special distinctions that are made towards the subject of religious testimony. So far, I have been discussing the general principles alone, that apply to everything that is equal with the definition of testimony. Perhaps a fear of letting a divine foot in the door, is what is making discussion difficult.

We've given examples of testimony, for example that of aliens or of other religions, that YOU wouldn't accept.  So unless you are prepared to explain how you differentiate between your claims and those of other religions, then I'm not sure this entire process of establishing testimony as evidence helps you.

I think that you are making assumptions about what I would or would not accept. I also notice, that most of the examples I have seen are rather poor examples of testimony to best suit what you are trying to argue. "I've seen a ghost" is not very good as evidence. It's vague, leaves much to the imagination, and is more of a claim, than an account of what occurred. A very detailed account of what you saw, when, and where with other corroborating evidence (including testimony), is much better.