How would you regard good evidence for a God you don't now believe in?

[VAN BELLE Jean Marc]

An objectively revealed god, would mostly likely be some kind of demiurge which would still be very interesting but not maximally great.

So much for the Jesus myth.

Had to look up the word 'demiurge', seems to be 'creator' > creationism.

When you read everything they SAID ABOUT Jezus, he seemed to talk about 'some father', seldomly about God as such. The only parable he exlained himself would be the one of with the seads (= good words, word God even there could be meaning 'good') that mostly die in infurtile grounds. Jezus did NOT want to become famous, and in a beginning sentence "that Jezus got more and more loved by men" i also see that he used to be less lovely when he was a small kid and more pure in wisdom and thinking when he got older.

Whether Jezus was a myth or a real person, what we have is 'second hand', and a lot can have been setup (Jews eg. believe that another Jew Joseph paid to let him take away out of the grave so it is even not sure whether he 'survived' his crusification, but that can also be 'an arranged' item, we do not know).

But the things they "say he said" (pffft, dangerous stuff), sound very wise, for most persons so wise that it did not seem normal anymore.

I knew a lot of persons who told me such wise things from a small kid, but now, as we get older, we have to take the wisdom 'over'.

You can name me atheist, or religious. Mostly when people combine such things to "what i say" (not to what i do!), they do it for there OWN profit, because they deistic or because they think they're atheistic.

i am also a journalist, when people would love what i say, i would give me the idea i would be telling the wrong things. When they do not like what i see (as Charlie Hebdo), then you have a bigger 'chance/rating', you dear to tell 'more' truth (who ones truth?) and not wat people normally want to hear (facebook got very fundamentalistic, this will be a new book this month of mine, i hope).

Evi - dence (document, prove, obviousness, testification) comes from (classic Latin): ex + videntem whereby ex = "fully, out off" and videntem comes from nominativ videns (present participle of videre) = seen:

so evidence = like it can be fully seen from all sides leaving no doubt left nor darkness.

Nothing can be fully seen... everything has a dark (in Star Wars they mean with dark "with emotion, not good or bad as such", i learned from my son) side.

For some the love between man and wife is so extraourdinary it makes 'evidence' for them that a God or God exists.

But then we do not talk about evidence, but about recognizing, i presume...