On the nature of evidence.

[Chas]

I find your lack of assertions not credible for the same reason. There is absolutely no way to test whether either of us is right. The sooner you come to accept this and learn to agree to disagree about things, the sooner you will be able to have a real and meaningful intellectual exchange with someone you disagree with.

Your first sentence does not make sense.
And since I am not making a claim, I am neither right nor wrong. I am saying I don't accept your unevidenced assertion.

---

But that makes it not evidence.

No, that makes it testimonial evidence from a witness. If you choose to not believe it, that is one thing. But you are attempting redefine a form of evidence you don't agree with as "No True Evidence." You are asking for DATA, not evidence. I don't have any data for you.

Testimony alone is not credible evidence. It is no more credible than my claiming there are pixies in my garden.

---

I assumed a being with certain characteristics for the sake of discussion. There is no straw man. I addressed a possible response and asked a further question about it.

I'm afraid you are confusing evidence with data. Testimonial evidence is evidence. You are using semiotics to assume of different definition of evidence than is commonly applied. You are engaging in a "No true evidence" fallacy.

You have provided no testimony, let alone evidence, of God's intervention in your life.

The sooner you stick to the point, the sooner you can have a meaningful discussion.