''Yes, Scientists believe in God''.

[Edwardo Piet]

And yes, the claim "God exists" needs to be backed by evidence for there to be any truth in it.

Not necessarily. If I said that the earth was near spherical and provided no evidence, I'd still be correct. So even without evidence, God might exist. But I see what you're saying, and yes it so improbable, unlikely, counter-intuitive, all the rest. I think what you meant was "unless the claim is backed by evidence, we have no reason to believe it is true"?

lol, yes of course. I just mean that you should believe something on evidence not faith. If you claim "God exists" it "should" or "needs" to be backed by evidence (although in case you mention it, not necessarily).
If God exists despite we have no evidence of him then yes it doesn't need to be backed up...
I just mean I think to believe in "God" there should be evidence of him. I don't think its good to believe without evidence. To believe on faith. As I'm sure you know I think this (I mean think you know at least? I'm not talking absolute "KNOW" here once again lol)!
As I said earlier I am talking about scientific truth, not absolute truth.
I am talking about temporary agnosticism in practice (TAP) as Dawkins says to be the only reasonable position on God. I just mean that God shouldn't be considered to exist until there's evidence that he does and/or that his existence is probable.
And by the way, on the Dawkins TAP spectrum of probability: I'm about a 6.9 meaning I am a de facto atheist. I'm about as agnostic about "God" as I am about the FSM (basically undisprovable supernatural entities.)
When I said for the claim "God exists" to be true it needs to be backed up by evidence. I mean to be considered true. it would be silly to think he exists without any evidence of his existence whatsoever.
So I think this this is perhaps a matter of semantics? I think the language I used is perhaps similar to forgetting to say "I think" when stating an opinion and its mistakenly treated as a claim. Instead I forgot to say I mean considered to be truth. Not "truth" as in absolute truth.
I forgot to say considered, I guess because I'm very used to thinking in a TAP way.
Evf