What would it take?

[eyemixer]

So, as an atheist I am often asked (and often ask myself) what would I accept as evidence of the existence of god (generic theistic version). In an effort to avoid erecting a defensive structure of text, liberal use of hiding abounds. I don't deal with what it would take for me to be convinced that one god was the right one, that's a much thornier one than generic theism.

I can easily state big things, like the sun stopping for hours and the earth not ripping apart, the stars rearranging to spell words that everyone on the planet can see, etc...

My dilemma lies in identifying the minimal amount of evidence I would find as a reasonable basis to believe in god(s). If I can't nail that down, I'm not really able to answer a question my position indicates I should be able to.

PLEASE chime in where you disagree. I like a bit of biting wit pointing out my errors, it gives me entertainment and elucidation

Evidence:

---

Subjective vs. Objective
Documented vs. Non-documented
Repeatable vs. Non-repeatable

---

Subjective vs. Objective

---

I view subjective as wholly internal, allowing for perceptions that are internalized.
Example: I see the sun stop for 5 minutes during a hike, I hear a voice tell me things and/or engage in conversation.
I view objective as requiring an interaction with the material world.
Example: I somehow lose my forearm in an accident on that hike. During the next two weeks I adjust to being partially limbless, and then in the third week my limb regenerates over the course of a day.

---

Documented vs. Non-Documented

---

If an experience is documented, and meets generally established criteria for authenticity it is pretty significant. Even something I would consider subjective becomes objective with proper documentation.
Example: I bring back the severed part of my forelimb when I reach civilization again, and now you have to take me seriously. I have visual evidence that can be verified and proven to be free from illusion that demonstrates a violation of nature but I was not there myself, not so much, unless your evidence is awesome or can be replicated.

If not documented, but Objective, I feel it would become enough evidence for me to become an agnostic theist and then refine my views, but it would not be enough evidence to warrant any expectation of others believing the same thing as I now would.
Example: I was not able to recover the missing bit'olimb by the time I got back to civilization.

---

Repeatable vs. Non-repeatable.

---

If the experience is well documented and/or the conditions can be replicated, the value of the documentation can be put to the test. If it holds up, I find myself accepting of the evidence in question. If it does not hold up, dismissal wins the day.
Unfortunately, not everything can be repeatable. In that case all you have do go on is the documentation and how credible you find it.

---

I would believe, but couldn't ask you to.

---

I would accept an Objective, Non-documented, Non-repeatable experience (Lost arm and all that) as enough to shift me to an agnostic theist. I would not be able to reasonably argue that anyone else should be persuaded based on my experience, and I would continue to question my beliefs, as I do now, as a skeptic.

The difficulty in this position is defining the least significant experience that would convince me of the 'closer thing to the truth than I used to believe'. In the limb example, If I went to a doctor, and absolutely nothing could be found as to what could have caused a spontaneous regeneration, I would believe that there is some power beyond scientific understanding that is capable of suspending the laws of nature and I have been a beneficiary of such an action. Not any specific god(s), but theist in the widest possible sense.

Would losing a finger? Yeah. Would walking up to a boulder floating above the ground and being able to interact with it for hours? No. that could be explained by natural phenomena. Where is the middle ground? In my opinion it would take some kind of significant regeneration, either by me, or directly witnessed and interacted with in another. I welcome anyone's position on what would be required in a non-documented experience to change to a personal theistic position.

---

The real question is what would it take for me to feel justified in telling others that I have a reasonable, evidence based argument for the existence of god(s), still in a broad theistic sense.

---

There seem to be two options, Phenomenally well documented evidence lacking repeatability, and anything documented that is repeatable and generates its own validating documentation. Since documentation is a requirement, subjective vs. objective matter not.

The problem I run into here is establishing where the line is between 'proof of god' and 'unexplained natural phenomena'

How do you folk here distinguish the two? My current personal view is that if the 'event' requires the suspension or outright invalidation of the best established laws of nature we understand, it fits into the 'proof' camp. If it's simply another level of understanding that fits with directly observable results we can continue to record, it falls into the 'unexplained' camp.
Example: A laboratory can document the remission of cancer when water is blessed and then drank by patients. The water cannot be distinguished from un-blessed water by any known method. Enough repeatable results and I'm a believer in something intervening in the physical world (remission) but unobservable by any means we possess.
Finding that a specific sonic pattern in the incantation creates some type of effect in the water that is measurable in analysis, 'unexplained', or rather understood now is the pick, not 'proof of god'. I'm willing to believe one person got lucky out of the billions that have been blessing water and hit that note just right. But in the time period it takes to be able to actually discern what the mechanism is in the natural word, it sure seems like the first example.

That leads to my inclination to view most things I come up with in my head as 'proof of god' as actually things that would most likely be discovered in time through advances in our understanding of the natural world. But if I stick with that too much, I'm as bad as the already convinced gnostic theist who won't ever accept something that contradicts their view of god(s). (Minus all the mouth frothing)

---

So my baseline line on feeling reasonable in saying others should believe would have to be a repeatable, successful, directly interactive experience. Basically if we (as people, maybe it rotates or something) could call up god(s) every Friday night, ask them to do stuff, have them do stuff on request that we can observe, and still have no conceivable knowledge of how they do that. And they could still be alien pranksters with technology literally millions of years more advanced than our own.

That seems to be a lot to ask from a theist (god on command) but if I'm honest that's the only thing that would make me feel I would have the right to tell you that I have a position so reasonable and backed with evidence that you are failing to use correct logic yourself if you do not agree with it. Obviously the definition of acceptable validation of evidence can be an issue, but for this thought experiment, assume "Phenomenally well documented evidence" meets whatever criteria you have as a skeptic.

Please let me know what you folk think would be enough to make the case to other god(s) exist. More evidence, less evidence, different evidence, and why. I think the better I can answer this question for myself the better I will be at pruning my bias towards picking 'unexplained' over 'proof' instead of the 50% odds it should be at a well defined threshold point.