"What evidence would you accept?"

[Zzyzx]

.
A common ploy or evasion used in our debates in response to a request for evidence to substantiate claims or statements is "What evidence would you accept?"

To the best of my knowledge there is no system of reasoning or logic that requires a challenger to identify acceptable evidence before it is presented.

Those who are confident that they have strong supporting evidence for their position have no need or desire to make that foolish request.

One response to "what evidence will you accept" that I occasionally use is "To give you some idea, consider the level of evidence YOU would accept favoring the opposite position"

Or I may outline so-called "evidence" that I will NOT accept as evidence of truth – to include opinions, testimonials, unverifiable tales, conjectures, myths, legends and/or "millions believe". I certainly will not accept "scriptures" as evidence of truth (which is in accord with Forum Rules and Guidelines).

[Haven]

I can tell you stories of things that have happened in my life that reflect the reality of those three things, but unless you personally know me I wouldn't expect those experiences to hold any weight, especially with anyone on a debate forum.

You're right that it won't convince me. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the claims that "demonic spirits," "power in Jesus name," and "answered prayers" are real phenomena are certainly extraordinary. When I was a Christian I believed in all of these things and even witnessed "exorcisms," "intercessory prayer," and "healings." Nothing supernatural happened.

I don't personally know any Muslims so I'm not sure if they would phrase it like that. I also don't know if their concept of faith is the same as mine i.e. the Bible says faith comes from God, does the Qur'an say that faith comes from Allah?

Yes it does:

“These are they into whose hearts He has impressed faith and strengthened them with a spirit from Him.� (Qur'an 58:22)

Do conservative theists have any evidence that their religions are true, or just faith? Why should faith convince anyone?

[Divine Insight]

Did you personally know what would make you believe and become a Christian?

Yes I did know. Nothing less than a direct encounter would convince me.

Knowing this then you can hardly expect anyone else to have a lesser standard.

A direct encounter with God would convince me too. In fact, having my early prayers answered when I was a Christian would have been impressive.

I didn't experience any of that.

And this brings us to the big question?

Why would this God answer your prayers and reveal himself to you, but not answer my prayers or reveal himself to me?

Clearly this would be a God who loves you and hates me.

And that seems to be the kind of delusion people need to have to support this religion.

And let's not forget that I'm not alone in this. Based on this kind of thinking this God also hated Mother Teresa, because this God never revealed himself to her, nor did he answer her prayers.

I could never trust a God who would reveal himself to you, but not to me. Such a God would only be confirming that he is indeed a hateful monster, even if his hatred is only randomly directed to arbitrary individuals.

[Goat]

For me, philosophy and logic can deduce that there is an uncaused cause (first cause) and can also deduce some of its attributes (infinite, eternal, omnipotent, and a few others), the question was which (if any) of the religions could accurately identify the uncaused cause. Further evidence that led me to where I am now involved discovering the existence of demonic spirits, the power in the name of Jesus and answered prayers.

Those are not evidence. Those are arguments. There is a difference between evidence and arguments. An argument can use evidence to support it, but a lot of philosophical arguments do not have supporting evidence for it.