The nature of evidence

[RoadRunner79]

---

1. First, there must be a clear, unambiguous definition of the thing you're trying to provide evidence for. How would we know when we'd "found" it? Most God claims do not get past this point.

2. There needs to be some sort of evidence taken from reality which, ideally:

A) Can be examined independently
B) Can be examined directly (as directly as possible, without simply relying on other people's accounts)
C) Should be repeatable and verifiable
D) Should establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the existence of exactly the entity described in point 1, as directly as possible (not by trying to exclude other possibilities)

What does not count as credible evidence (in my opinion):

-Anecdotes, written or verbal (regardless of how many) [This covers story books such as the bible, and people's "personal experiences"]

-Philosophical arguments not backed by supporting evidence [Attempts to show something "must logically exist" without ever verifying it]

Think what it would take to convince you that there's a magical goblin living in my water tank. When you decide what kind of thing would suffice, you're probably pretty close.

http://youtu.be/inw1fNItjdU

---

Could you please describe what you mean by Anecdotes? What distinguishes anecdotes from testimony of evidence?

[TheRealJoeFish]

---

1. First, there must be a clear, unambiguous definition of the thing you're trying to provide evidence for. How would we know when we'd "found" it? Most God claims do not get past this point.

2. There needs to be some sort of evidence taken from reality which, ideally:

A) Can be examined independently
B) Can be examined directly (as directly as possible, without simply relying on other people's accounts)
C) Should be repeatable and verifiable
D) Should establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the existence of exactly the entity described in point 1, as directly as possible (not by trying to exclude other possibilities)

What does not count as credible evidence (in my opinion):

-Anecdotes, written or verbal (regardless of how many) [This covers story books such as the bible, and people's "personal experiences"]

-Philosophical arguments not backed by supporting evidence [Attempts to show something "must logically exist" without ever verifying it]

Think what it would take to convince you that there's a magical goblin living in my water tank. When you decide what kind of thing would suffice, you're probably pretty close.

http://youtu.be/inw1fNItjdU

---

Could you please describe what you mean by Anecdotes?  What distinguishes anecdotes from testimony of evidence?

Not to speak for Rob, but there's a big difference between "This happened (to me/to a friend/two thousand years ago)" (anecdote) and "This happened, and here's how you make it happen, and here's why it happened, and it will happen again if you do a, b, and c, and if you want to show it didn't happen, here's what you would need to prove, and other people who have studied this have read all of what happened and how and why it happened have agreed that based on the information here it is most likely it did happen for the reasons I've suggested and they're going to keep trying to make it happen again to be even more certain" (evidence) (or, shall we say, science)

[LadyForCamus]

My two cents even though the question wasn't posed to me: personal testimony, a form of anecdotal evidence (someone correct me if my language is imprecise here) is considered one of the lowest quality forms of evidence in the scientific world. I don't think there is much practical difference between "testimony of evidence" and "anecdotal evidence" the way that you mean it.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah, I don't think it's even considered scientific evidence at all. It's weak as fuck.

[downbeatplumb]

---

1. First, there must be a clear, unambiguous definition of the thing you're trying to provide evidence for. How would we know when we'd "found" it? Most God claims do not get past this point.

2. There needs to be some sort of evidence taken from reality which, ideally:

A) Can be examined independently
B) Can be examined directly (as directly as possible, without simply relying on other people's accounts)
C) Should be repeatable and verifiable
D) Should establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the existence of exactly the entity described in point 1, as directly as possible (not by trying to exclude other possibilities)

What does not count as credible evidence (in my opinion):

-Anecdotes, written or verbal (regardless of how many) [This covers story books such as the bible, and people's "personal experiences"]

-Philosophical arguments not backed by supporting evidence [Attempts to show something "must logically exist" without ever verifying it]

Think what it would take to convince you that there's a magical goblin living in my water tank. When you decide what kind of thing would suffice, you're probably pretty close.

http://youtu.be/inw1fNItjdU

---

Could you please describe what you mean by Anecdotes?  What distinguishes anecdotes from testimony of evidence?

I went to the pub and met Angelina Jolie who begged me for sex, is an unsupported anecdote. It is unsupported and may be entirely fictional. 
I met Angelina Jolie last night, you saw me leave remember. Is still dubious but has a little more going for it, could be any bit of rough he took home though.
Here's a sex tape of me and Angelina where you can clearly see both of us, it is date stamped and look that's my bedroom, I have DNA evidence on the mattress. is stronger evidence. 
So without supporting evidence you have zip really.

[Joods]

Hello.

I have listened and witnessed that, when debating about God, the main questions that is present within the atheist party is that they do not believe in God because there is no evidence for Him. I am interested but also confused, because I need to understand what "evidence" really means, certainly what for some people is enough "evidence" for others is not even close to that, so, my questions are:

1. What does the word "evidence" mean?
2. What kind of said evidence would be necessary for you to actually believe there is a God?

Evidence in this case means: substantiated, documented, tangible proof.
Saying it is so, does not MEAN it is so. That is not evidence of proof. It is, however, evidence of one's opinion, which is not what is acceptable here. You want people to believe that your god is the right god, submit objective, tangible evidence to make your claim.

You've no doubt read enough of the threads here to have the understanding of what is required for proof of the existence of any god. Stop playing dumb. We've seen that before and it's tiring when a newbie comes in and tries using the same old boring bag of tricks.

[robvalue]

I don't even know what "testimony of evidence" is supposed to mean.

You guys explained about anecdotes well for me, thank you

An anecdote (describing an incident) lives and dies entirely on (a) the person telling the truth and (b) the person correctly interpreting everything, just as they describe. This is incredibly weak evidence. It's not observable, repeatable or verifiable.

More importantly, you're never going to convince a sceptic of anything (except the mundane) based on such "evidence". Ever. Trying to pretend it's more than it is just wastes everyone's time.

[Mister Agenda]

Hello.

I have listened and witnessed that, when debating about God, the main questions that is present within the atheist party is that they do not believe in God because there is no evidence for Him. I am interested but also confused, because I need to understand what "evidence" really means, certainly what for some people is enough "evidence" for others is not even close to that, so, my questions are:

1. What does the word "evidence" mean?
2. What kind of said evidence would be necessary for you to actually believe there is a God?

1. Evidence is a demonstrable observation or fact that leads to a particular conclusion.

2. That's going to vary quite a bit from person to person. The right word from the right individual might do it for some. 'I am real--God' spelled out in galaxies would probably do the trick for most skeptics. Probably most of us fall somewhere in between. For me, one supernatural thing would be enough to send me back to the drawing board, it wouldn't prove God, but it would prove that something supernatural is possible.

[Minimalist]

I still have the question about which kind of evidence would be conclusive for you to believe the christian God is real.

He'd have to show up and do all the magic tricks your tales claim he did. This time under laboratory conditions.  If he can't be bothered then neither can I.

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting.  "Faith" is a stupid reason to accept any statement.

[Mister Agenda]

Why has "evidence" for God only become an ambiguous concept since people began realizing that the claims made in the Judeo-Christian literature lack credibility and contradict everything we know about Nature?

Why they contradict everything we know about nature? In order for me to believe you, you cannot just make an empty statement.

I have told you Who God is, God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. God is the creator of the universe.

How do you know the creator of the universe is the Christian trinity?