If theists understood "evidence"

[RoadRunner79]

Here we go again.....
Perhaps, his testimony is a part of the evidence to consider.

Are you saying that testimony is never evidence?    It would seem the the courts, scholars, and most people do not agree with you.

Or we can skip this nonsense, where you have to believe everything that everyone has said, or nothing at all.  I think that you look at the evidence, what it says, what evidence can corroborate or contradict it.  You know.... apply some of that critical thinking I'm always hearing about here.  And not where it just means personal incredulity.

Some testimony is true, while other testimony is false, while other testimony is mistaken, which is why the courts adjudicate such things.

Do they use reason and arguments to do this, or is it more just feelings?