As I mentioned in an earlier blog, I define evidence as, That which should follow if a concept is true.
So, for example, if I were to believe that leaves fell from trees in Autumn/The Fall, then evidence for this would be lots of leaves on the ground during Autumn.
Of course, evolutionists don't want us to define evidence because if we define evidence then we then have the knowledge of what to look for if God exists.
Some examples of what evidence should exist if God exists, are as follows;
If God exists, then we should expect to see incredible, mind-blowingly intelligent design. (aerodynamics of birds)
If God exists, then we should expect to see a universe, with order, laws, and clear purpose and function. (function, such as reproduction, or photosynthesis)
If God exists, especially a personal God interested and responsible for making man-kind we should expect to see that humans would pursue God, perhaps in many forms of worship, if they are ignorant of what God wants from them.
If God exists, we should expect to see decay and degredation if God is lost from the system, OR, if God abandons the system to a degree.
My point is that we could posit many things that should follow if God exists, and those things do follow. Yes, to be fair we say these things posteriori, (after the fact), but that can't be helped.
Now I want to show how hard-atheists qualify evidence for God, so that we can see if they are fair in regards to qualifying evidence;
They might say;
If God exists then we should expect to see nothing that we do see, no matter what it is, everything we see should not be there if God exists, therefore everything shows that there is no evidence for God's existence.
So I will leave it to the readers to decide whether this is a fair way of defining evidence for God, because the atheists I have debated, were unable to state that ANYTHING that exists should evidence God, because they define evidence of God as, "nothing that exists".
As you can see, this is not rational behaviour, if anything it shows us a great denial of reality. For it is tautologous reasoning to say that, "everything you observe will disprove God".
Such reasoning guarantees that every piece of evidence ever found will favour Atheism.
If God exists then we would expect to reasonably see things that should follow, these things are evidence according to a fair qualification.