What would you consider to be evidence for God?

[snowtracks]

But here's the deal, it doesn't even matter that I don't know.  Because if God is real then SHE (God is genderless right?  So this is EXACTLY as accurate as "he") knows what it would take to convince me.

Most of the "what would it take for you to believe" questions I've seen assume that it should only take one piece of evidence

---

--an event, an experience, etc-- to convince us of something as important as whether there really is a god and whether it is the specific god they follow.  Aside from the issue of the ease with which we can be fooled into accepting something that is not true --a tactic theists use as well, when dismissing one another's god claims-- why should we expect so little of God?  Why would I expect that God will only ever tap me on one shoulder and duck behind the other as a way of proving that he's real?

If he showed up and did the things that only God can do and went about his Godly business for all to see, we'd figure it out soon enough.  Instead, I'm supposed to look at the sky and be awed by the view, or see a powerful creature and assume it was designed, and learn about flesh-eating bacteria and, uh... blame it on Adam and Eve???

---

God reveals Himself through Scripture, and Nature. Science interprets Nature, theologians interprets Scripture. If the interpretations of these sources appear to contradict, adjustments will harmonizes to the truth. For instance as a starting point, the 1'st chapter of Genesis* gives a 13 billion year flawless summary of Nature. One of 4 definitions of the word 'Day' is: 'a long but finite period of time'. This scriptural definition of 'day' is compatible with Nature's scientific record. The process then precedes forward for additional details. Using just one of these sources, makes the evidence harder to discern, but nevertheless is still adequate.

*Note: 2'nd chapter of Genesis, tell the 'why' of creation and therefore is not in chronological physical order as chapter 1.