Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[RoadRunner79]

It appears, that you agree, that testimony is evidence. That a person can share their first hand knowledge of their observations, and that can be used to form a justified belief. Yet you seem to be making another standard (or special pleading), where the same reasoning is not applied, and it is not evidence to be evaluated towards knowing the truth.

I'm going to offer testimony for the following two statements.

1. I cooked breakfast this morning.
Do you believe me based solely on my testimony ?

2. I was born in 1378 on the land people today refer to as Pennsylvania. I am 640 years old.
Do you believe me based solely on my testimony ?

I'm not going through hypotheticals.   I've been down that road before, and it leads no where.   It's actually a heads you win tails you lose type of situation, and as I said before, doesn't justify or explain any logic to validate anything.  

You are going to have to provide justification and reason for what you are saying.    However I would point out, that you didn't really give me any more or less information for either.   You are depending on me taking it on faith, that you cooked breakfast this morning.

---

From wiki for "personal" or Anecdotal Evidence:

Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific or pseudo-scientific because various forms of cognitive bias may affect the collection or presentation of evidence. For instance, someone who claims to have had an encounter with a supernatural being or alien may present a very vivid story, but this is not falsifiable. This phenomenon can also happen to large groups of people through subjective validation.

A common way anecdotal evidence becomes unscientific is through fallacious reasoning such as the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, the human tendency to assume that if one event happens after another, then the first must be the cause of the second. Another fallacy involves inductive reasoning. For instance, if an anecdote illustrates a desired conclusion rather than a logical conclusion, it is considered a faulty or hasty generalization. For example, here is anecdotal evidence presented as proof of a desired conclusion:

There's abundant proof that drinking water cures cancer. Just last week I read about a girl who was dying of cancer. After drinking water she was cured.

Anecdotes like this do not prove anything

One: I agree with this, but not for the same reasons. The reasoning in the article is that scientific claims are not just based on mere observance. It's not denying the observations of drinking water, or that the cancer was cured as evidence, it is saying, that evidence is not sufficient for the claim. Hence the "post hoc ergo hoc" reference. And I agree, such studies are often about creating statistical data, based off of a number of cases, at times controller certain things, to eliminate other interference (or having a control group). Here there is justification, for a different type of evidence, to support the claim, because the type of claim is different.

Two: I think you just tried to use "anecdotal" evidence as evidence against anicdotal evidence.

Three: Science isn't the only way to knowledge.