Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[RoadRunner79]

So then, you are saying, that I can deny any testimony, that I have not seen for myself.    By this standard, then I can say that there is no evidence for evolution.   There is no evidence against President Trump, I don't even have any evidence that Sweden exists (my apologies to Brian and ABBA)

First off, make reading comprehension a priority.
I presented the idea of a book that contains testimony from people in the distant past who are no longer alive or perhaps never were alive. The letters from family and friends are third-party accounts of what they were told happened.

Second, we need to verify that these people existed and it's not one big fictional story.

Third, we need to demonstrate the truth of what is claimed in the book.

The evidence for evolution is much more that testimony. We have current, hands on, physical evidence that can be examined by anyone with experiments that can be repeated for verification and validation.

As for Sweden, you may not currently have any evidence for Sweden in your possession, but you can obtain it quite easily by flying there.

When someone tells me they had cereal for breakfast, I can believe them based on testimony alone because it is an ordinary thing that many humans do.

If I required more evidence, the person could take a picture or invite me over to their house so that I can watch them eat a very soggy bowl of cereal.

If someone said they had a bowl of cereal this morning while aboard an alien spaceship in orbit around Alpha Centauri, then I'm going to need more than ordinary testimony before I would believe such a claim.

You don't have to personally be in a place to witness an event. What you do need however is enough evidence that can verify and demonstrate the truth of the claim.

Most of the time, police detectives aren't at the scene of the crime as it's happening. If they were, they would attempt to stop the crime from happening.

In a trial we rely upon the evidence presented to see if there is enough reliable evidence to vote for a guilty plea.

If there is not enough evidence presented, then we vote not guilty. Now this doesn't mean that the person accused is innocent. It simply means that the prosecution hasn't met their burden of proof by providing enough credible evidence for a guilty plea.

I agree with much of what you said, about testimony.   We need corroborating evidence, to show that they where there and can accurately describe    what they saw.     I just don't agree with sliding scales and special pleading.  You might offer some faith, to a inconsequential claim, or something common, and forego this, but others don't need to.   On the other hand, one can't really maintain a hyperskepticism either, where everything has an irrationally high scale either.   But I agree that testimony is evidence, and evidence needs to be corroborated (whether it is direct evidence or indirect evidence).  We also weigh evidence for and against a given conclusion.     However an intellectually honest person, shouldn't be dismissing evidence without reason.   And I don't find personal incredulity to be a very good reason.

---

It seems like the evidence demand is always moving and shifting. There’s always an excuse to not look at the evidence, and there’s always something else.

Hence why christianity is so interested in controlling education. Allows them to indoctrinate the childers into not looking at the evidence.

We both know this to be true. The difference between us is that you deny the truth, shitbag.

The echo chamber, negativity and insults in place of critical thinking and civil discussion is getting tiring here. This is laughable coming from you.

I’m not interested in your “whataboutism” and prooftexting to change the subject.