Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[Cyberman]

I have acknowledged, in many of my previous posts, that there is no known evidence that God exists. This of course also means that I also acknowledge that there is no known evidence that Jesus is the Son of God.
So why I believe that Jesus is the Son of God? I have actually answered this kind of question in my first post in this thread. I will answer it again in here.
There are 2 reasons (both must be fulfilled). First, because there is no evidence that He is not. Second, because believing that Jesus is the Son of God brings an overall positive impact to me.

[. . .]

Btw, you mentioned about the possibility that Jesus is just an imaginary, fraud, improperly documented, or a near-magical future being. I don't believe that but I admit it's a possibility. Do you have any evidence of this? If you do, what's the evidence?

Why are you asking for evidence of this when you just got done telling us you believe JC is the son of "God" on the basis of there being no evidence against it (which is a basic shifting of the burden of proof but we can let that go for the moment)?

---

Absence of proof in support of something is rather compelling evidence to the rational mind. If there is no evidence of its existence, it is counterproductive to reason that one should believe it exists nonetheless.

What would you class as evidence for God? A big bearded face suddenly appearing in the sky like in Star Trek V?

I realise you're not addressing me but this is a common red herring tactic. It's not about what we would class as evidence - it's not our job to propose evidence to prove your god. You're the ones making the claim this god exists; how about we start with what you class as evidence and go from there? Because in the absence of an actual god to analyse and cross-examine, we have to look at the claims that are made for it.