What would you consider to be evidence for God?

[Longhorn]

Evidence: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

I would consider evidence of god if there exists an available body of facts or information indicating the existence of a god.

How do you determine valid evidence from invalid evidence?

God unambiguously revealing himself vs faces on toast.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Evidence: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

I would consider evidence of god if there exists an available body of facts or information indicating the existence of a god.

How do you determine valid evidence from invalid evidence?

Valid evidence would fit the criteria of the definition of Evidence,i.e, "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.".
Invalid evidence wouldn't fit that criteria.

[Kingpin]

Every fact someone provides might be accurate, and yet they might leave out crucial information needed to prove the claim: They might have insufficient evidence. One key step in evaluating evidence, therefore, is to decide if it is sufficient.

How do you know there’s enough? What makes evidence sufficient to prove a claim?

There is no simple answer to this question. To a large extent it’s a matter of individual judgement, based on what you know about a topic, the assumptions you make, your ability to draw conclusions from the facts available.

Generally speaking, of course, more evidence is better, and more types of evidence are better. Ok but what types of evidence, as evidence comes in may types. Including:

1. Statistics. Although technically just one form of number evidence, statistics are special enough to count as their own separate type of evidence, especially because they are so valuable at making evidence representative.

2. Names (for example, place names, names of individuals, organizations, movements, etc.)

3. Expert opinion

4. Specialized knowledge (the author’s own knowledge, not common knowledge, usually acquired through some sort of formal training)

5. Individual stories/examples, also known as anecdotal evidence (When the term “anecdotal” evidence is used, it is generally a negative or critical term suggesting that the evidence is not representative. Individual stories or examples, however, are often useful evidence.)

6. Physical details (sense data)—things you can see, hear, touch, smell or taste
- Dialogue (Speech of other people reported directly, exactly as spoken, usually with quotation marks [“ ”] around it and set off in separate paragraphs, one for each speaker. Technically this is a subset of physical detail, because it is something you can hear, but direct reporting of what people have said is important enough to be considered a separate category.)

7. Documentary evidence (evidence from documents). This includes all of the following, among many others:
- Letters
- Diaries
- Unpublished writings (early drafts of works published later; juvenile works by famous authors, etc.)
- Laws
- Administrative policies
- Court decisions
- Speeches, interviews, and other statements by relevant people

---

How do you determine valid evidence from invalid evidence?

God unambiguously revealing himself vs faces on toast.  

But Vic, his face is there!  I mean come on!  

I'm glad you mention revealing himself.  That's an important point.  Revelation about someone comes about when that person speaks or communicates in some way.  I can use biology and chemistry to study you and your physical makeup but I cannot get to know you unless you speak and reveal something about yourself.  The Christian worldview asserts that God revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ.

[Longhorn]

God unambiguously revealing himself vs faces on toast.  

But Vic, his face is there!  I mean come on!  

I'm glad you mention revealing himself.  That's an important point.  Revelation about someone comes about when that person speaks or communicates in some way.  I can use biology and chemistry to study you and your physical makeup but I cannot get to know you unless you speak and reveal something about yourself.  The Christian worldview asserts that God revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ.

And dog butts. Can't forget the dog butts!

.....who I've never met, seen, or heard from and only know about from other people and dubious sources. Not very unambigious is it? Especially considering the OTHER 20+ major religions.

[Kingpin]

But Vic, his face is there!  I mean come on!  

I'm glad you mention revealing himself.  That's an important point.  Revelation about someone comes about when that person speaks or communicates in some way.  I can use biology and chemistry to study you and your physical makeup but I cannot get to know you unless you speak and reveal something about yourself.  The Christian worldview asserts that God revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ.

And dog butts. Can't forget the dog butts!

.....who I've never met, seen, or heard from and only know about from other people and dubious sources. Not very unambigious is it? Especially considering the OTHER 20+ major religions.

Of which you must apply the types of evidence listed above and make a judgment.  I believe that Julius Caesar was a real person but I have never met, seen or heard from him and only know about from other people and historical documents.  You say dubious sources, but I know very few scholars who would deny that a person named Jesus of Nazareth existed and was crucified by the Romans under Pontius Pilate.  Where they start to disagree is the resurrection.

[robvalue]

Yeah, the resurrection...

Are you aware that the resurrection account is widely considered to be a forgery? As in, not even a part of the original story which itself was a hearsay account written decades later?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

Even if it wasn't a forgery and "Mark" thought it important enough to include in his account, why would you believe it actually happened over any other mythical tale of magic happenings? (Compare and contrast to Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter.)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1611224/

The scholars disagree on the resurrection in exact correlation to whether they are Christian or not; that is, whether they already presuppose it.

[Longhorn]

And dog butts. Can't forget the dog butts!

.....who I've never met, seen, or heard from and only know about from other people and dubious sources. Not very unambigious is it? Especially considering the OTHER 20+ major religions.

Of which you must apply the types of evidence listed above and make a judgment.  I believe that Julius Caesar was a real person but I have never met, seen or heard from him and only know about from other people and historical documents.  You say dubious sources, but I know very few scholars who would deny that a person named Jesus of Nazareth existed and was crucified by the Romans under Pontius Pilate.  Where they start to disagree is the resurrection.

But the evidence needs to be proportionate to the claim.

'I had breakfast' would require virtually no evidence, because it's a fairly normal thing to do for a human being to have breakfast every day.

'I had breakfast with the president' would require much more evidence, and 'I had breakfast with Jesus on the moon' can be dismissed instantly without really convincing evidence.

So whereas the evidence for the existence of Julius Ceasar is sufficient, the evidence for a son of god is laughable.

[downbeatplumb]

Of which you must apply the types of evidence listed above and make a judgment.  I believe that Julius Caesar was a real person but I have never met, seen or heard from him and only know about from other people and historical documents.  You say dubious sources, but I know very few scholars who would deny that a person named Jesus of Nazareth existed and was crucified by the Romans under Pontius Pilate.  Where they start to disagree is the resurrection.

Was there a historical man called jesus?

It really makes no difference either way.

I happen to think that there was, but only because of the stupidity of his death and the stretches of logic gone to to excuse it.

Have you seen videos of the followers of david koresch? they speak as if he was special still and excuse his silly death in just the same way as Christians try to save their favourite figure from ridicule.

Was there a man called jesus? maybe.
Was there a god called jesus? no.

[Kingpin]

Yeah, the resurrection...

Are you aware that the resurrection account is widely considered to be a forgery? As in, not even a part of the original story which itself was a hearsay account written decades later?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

Even if it wasn't a forgery and "Mark" thought it important enough to include in his account, why would you believe it actually happened over any other mythical tale of magic happenings? (Compare and contrast to Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter.)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1611224/

The scholars disagree on the resurrection in exact correlation to whether they are Christian or not; that is, whether they already presuppose it.

My dear friend Rob, please don't tell me you actually used wikipedia as a reputable source.  No educational institution allows for that here because it is editable by anyone.  Hell, I just edited that article now and added the sentence "Hi there Robvalue!" in the beginning of the first paragraph.  

I would point you to the works of Gary Habermas and Lee Strobel who take a historical and legal perspective on the issue.  Many discount these two gentlemen arguing that they come from a presupposition of God (Strobel did not, he was a self proclaimed atheist).  However even if that were the case, should we discredit scientists studies who start from a presupposition of naturalism and evolution?  Hardly.

[robvalue]

Edit: never mind, I shall leave you alone.