"What is “evidence”? A decent legal definition is “every type of proof legally presented at trial . . . which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case.” This proof can include eyewitness testimony, expert testimony, scientific evidence, and circumstantial evidence. The types of evidence are too numerous to list. But whatever its form, the bottom line is the same: It is proof that is intended to convince another person of the truth of the matter asserted.

Evidence is often contradictory. Eyewitnesses conflict, scientific evidence is often subject to different interpretations or can be tainted by mistakes or corruption in collection and analysis, statistics can often be more confusing than illuminating, but as anyone with even a few seconds of courtroom experience understands, the mere existence of alternative explanations does not — by itself — nullify evidence presented. Conflicting evidence or alternative explanations certainly increase the difficulty in discerning truth, but saying that one is not persuaded by the evidence presented, or believes that the evidence for one proposition is stronger than the evidence for another proposition, is a materially different statement than the assertion that there is no evidence at all."

Evidence is in fact the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Not very many could present proportional evidence to support their claim that a monotheistic God exists.

For instance:

There is a box. We haven't opened the box yet. So, there is no sufficient justification to prove the claim that the box contains anything.

HOWEVER

Nonetheless, the claim is possible. You can take it upon faith.

"Evidence" is one of the most important aspects of debating. You need to back up your arguments with information.

"conflicting evidence or alternative explanations do not equate to “no evidence.”"

Correct.

There is always more to come.

I may continue tomorrow.

Definitely facts and reasoning. Others are unnecessary. The others are mostly for expressing anger and emotion.

"Have you ever touched, smelled, heard, seen, or tasted your brain? No? Then according to the established laws of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocols, Science says you have no brain. So how should we trust your lectures? Faith correct? Exactly. That's what keeps things alive and moving."

1. I have seen my brain from various scans and pictures. And I contend that Science can easily demonstrate that I have a brain. Logic, reason, skepticism, and the critical assessment and testing of falsifiable claims is what provides evidence and sufficient justification to believe any claim, including the claim that I do in fact have a brain.

2. I see that you have derived this from a specific source. This would be considered "Plagiarism" for the lack of citing sources.

Source(s):

https://www.facebook.com/notes/berteni-cataluña-causing/debate-on-existence-of-god-professor-vs-student-named-einstein/10150155924483437

"If you were to say "I could disprove God's existence because nobody can prove it", I could say "I could prove God's existence because nobody can disprove it"."

1. Yes, and they would both be equally absurd.

2. That is a red herring; not at ALL relevant to the specific argument TheAtheist presented.

There is a MASSIVE distinction between the 2 following claims:

1) God does not exist because there's no evidence. (your straw-man of his position)

2) He do not believe that God exists because he has been presented with no evidence. (his actual position)

So therefore, your argument is indeed not relevant to his, and indeed a straw-man.

"If something is taken on faith then by definition there is no evidence."

Correct. But nonetheless, whatever claim faith is taken on is possible, no matter how childish it sounds.

What you do NOT understand is the fact that if you claim something to be true, the burden of proof is on YOU!

For instance:

If I say that King Kong was roaming around my house at midnight, I need to provide proportional evidence to support that claim (Photography, etc.) because that happening is most unlikely.

"Jesus" is a religious prophet who may or may not have existed. He definitely exists in the Bible and in the faith of individuals. THAT IS CHRISTIANITY.

You can not say that Deism (The belief of a God who does not intervene) is irrational with the premises of another religion.

I have come to the conclusion that saying that ones belief is "irrational" is wrong.

I simply do NOT hold the belief that an omniscient, omnipotent god exists until proportional evidence is presented.

For instance:

There is a box. We have NOT opened the box yet. So, we have no sufficient justification to prove the claim that the box contains anything.

WELL

Same goes for the claim that a monotheistic God exists.

HOWEVER

Nonetheless, it is still possible.