What would you consider to be evidence for God?

[Kingpin]

lkingpinl,

It's unfortunate that I've come back some time later, to see that you've tried to derail my thread with your nonsense. I should have mentioned that this thread was not really aimed at theists, as it is clear you're going to say "Well gad dangit it's the bible/quran/insert religious text here" or "I believe in unfalsifiable things because of X" [where X = a fallacy/misrepresentation of science].

So i'll bring it back. You've done nothing to actually show your point (at least, as well as you can given the current nature of human understanding). You are trying to hit at god as a cause, because you believe in god. Don't play games and act as though you are just being inquisitive, as your "build up to god" approach to debate is clearly shown in to your first post in this thread. I do not consider your apparent evidence as evidence (which, judging by the nature of your statements, is in my second example of why it should have been stated that this wasn't aimed at theists), nor can anyone with good reason, in light of what we understand currently within science, and the philosophy of science. This is because what you are driving at is based on the assumption that you have proof for something that no one can currently have proof for. Or in other words, it's unfalsifiable.

This is the crux of the matter that I was hitting at in the OP, or as I had stated in another post in this thread, the question behind the question. How on earth do you KNOW? How do we get past the solipsistic tendency of truth and move forward in to someplace in which we can establish facts, rather than espousing well attested hypotheses that are subject to error (or in your case, poorly constructed hypotheses which are also subject to error)?

Unfortunately, you could be absolutely right, and the fact that there is no way to test whether or not you are right is a problem. It is the bane of humanity, it is the reason people have died unnecessarily for beliefs throughout the ages. Without a strong means of being able to discern "truth" (what ever that means), there is no way to establish whether or not you are right or wrong with 100% certainty.

Perhaps my criteria is impossible, but again: I do not know whether or not that is the case (as with any truth claim), as I have no way to test them and draw accurate conclusions.

I do hope you understand what I've said.

Psychonaut, 

I fully understand with what you are saying and even more so, fully agree.  None of us may know with 100% certainty.  We can only believe based on our interpretation of the evidence laid before us.  I can only say that I believe there to be a God based on not just one piece of evidence but a culmination of evidence that points to this beyond a reasonable doubt.  I liken it to a court trial where evidence is presented on both sides, some may believe one side more than another or find the arguments more compelling from one side to be able to make a decision beyond "reasonable" doubt.  

This argument if God vs. No God is not a slam dunk case on either side.  I am not out to sway anyone to my side only give reasons why I personally believe the evidence points to a God.  There are unfalsifiable claims on both sides.  It really comes down to what the individual finds the most reasonable to accept.  

You are correct that I may be right and the same goes the opposite.  You may be right.  There may be no God.  But this was exactly the point of Pascal's Wager.