What would you consider to be evidence for God?

[phil-lndn]

I know the question seems nonsensical, but hear me out. 

I've often encountered my fellow atheists say that there's no evidence for God's existence. This seems true, but I think that the answer may be fairly loaded.
Does it come across to anyone that people sometimes assume we can get evidence to begin with? or is it just me? 
I know a fair portion of atheists would disagree, and that everyone knows that you're really saying

"no, and there really is no way to get evidence for such nonsense".


If we can't get evidence, because evidence (at least by scientific standards) is by it's very nature falsifiable,
(something which the god claim can't provide [currently]) then what would anyone constitute as evidence? Are those who use the "we don't have evidence yet" claim literally, deceived?

Seeing it with our own eyes? How would we know it's not a hallucination?
If by some chance we are provided falsifiability, how would we know we aren't deceived by an alien hallucination inducing device?
(Pardon the bong logic format)

If evidence can't point us toward or away from answers to this kind of question, are they even reasonable to ask? 
How could anyone who is honestly seeking an answer be expected to come up with one in the face of such obstacles?

Given what is said, does anyone think that there is evidence that would convince them that God exists?

Great post!

Generally speaking in the rational worldview we regard valid "evidence" as existing in the form of some sort of physical entity (some sort of physical object) or some sort of conceptual object  (a good line of reasoning) that we can SHARE.

so, evidence is often thought of as something that we can OFFER to one another. 

is there any other sort of evidence? i would suggest - yes. there is evidence personally experienced which we can't actually share. 

if i was alone on a desert island, and witnessed some weird event, it might be that i'm not in a position to share evidence of that event with other humans. 

i would argue that we are all in possession of such an experience. an experience we know for fact is true, but which we can't share.

the fact of our own existence, or consciousness. consciousness itself is an entirely subjective experience, so proof of the experience cannot be transferred to another human, because it's not an object. 

there's no evidence you can offer another individual for your own subjective conscious experience. 

so we've already got a situation of 7 billion people on the planet each having direct (e.g. factual) experience of their own existence which they can't actually prove to anyone, because the *experience* is not an object!

now extend that to the possibility of "religious" experience. you are already in possession of a fact you can't prove. where does that leave you if you demand objective proof of others of their truth claims? when you can't prove your own known positions?