This is how we achieve world peace?

[SCFinFan]

I'll take the burden of proof. But what counts to you as evidence?

[Dave Gray]

Do I really have to define evidence?

As a skeptic, when a claim is great, such as the existence of God, I need concrete evidence to support that claim.
Not all claims require such scrutiny, however.

If you told me that you saw a lady with a red dress at the store, while I was not there, your eyewitness testimony would be enough for that, because that claim is not outside the realm of normal possibility.  Such is not the case for things like God, for me.  The claim is too great, and there isn't the hard-evidence to back it up.  So, there is some evidence to support God.  People have seen Him, felt Him, He came in their dreams, there are artifacts that exist, but cannot be proven as genuine, etc.  But those forms of evidence are not enough to back up a claim so great.

I hold aliens, ghosts, etc. all to the same level of scientific scrutiny.

[SCFinFan]

With respect, a definition of evidence is absolutely essential. Without it, it would allow someone to do with semantics what must be done with rigorous scrutiny. Plus, whenever a definition is given, light is shone on a persons biases towards a certain topic area.

Further, I am compelled to say I doubt very much that your test does anything more than allow you to pay lip service to evidence standards, and shun a great quantity of evidence which would be reasonable to prove a multitude of other things, but apparently not God. My reasoning is as follows.

You start off by saying, "when a claim is great [...], I need concrete evidence to support that claim."

You never tell us why the claim of God's existence or non-existence is "great," though you do give us an example of what you consider the difference between a "great" claim and a "claim [that] is not outside the realm of normal possibility." The lady in the red dress...

Now, I fail to see how exactly these two are different, unless your importing your atheism in to the standard already. If a person tells you they saw a lady in a red dress, or that they saw God, what exactly is the difference? You say one is in the realm of normal possibility, and one is not; well, what is that "realm of normal possibility?" It seems as though you've already cabined in that spectrum to a mechanical, atheistic expectation... but in doing so, you've made a biased test which will always give you the answer you want, rather than get you closer to the truth. If you're going to question the existence of God, you can't make a test which backs in to atheism without really ever getting to the issue.

A test which would be more fundamentally fair, would be one that was agnostic to what exactly the realm of normal possibility was (and thus, what a "great" claim was). We do ourselves no good in asking about whether God exists, if we start off thinking that there is a set of normal possibilities of which God is not one, and, did he exist, he would have to create a substantial abnormality in that normal set of possibilities to be believable. A test like that would show, rather than a real engagement with the problem, a disdainful attitude to the whole debate in the first place.

Using your test, as it stands, would also exclude a great deal of rather normal evidence which cannot be proven by anything besides testimony if you (subjectively, might I add, with no criteria as to why you do so, other than your atheism) if you put it in the category of "great" claims. For example: intent. No scientific testing can prove what a man's intent was or is. It can only be inferred from his words and actions. (i.e. testimony) Other people have spoken about it, they've felt it, had dreams about it. There are dubious artifacts (stream of consciousness books) which attempt to tell you about it. But... well, nothing really scientific or "hard" (whatever that means, probably nothing) which the mind can wrap itself around.

Thus, as it stands, your claim that there is no evidence for God is faulty before it even gets off the mark. You've made a test which is so biased as to be worthless... except to those who have gotten to their conclusion before they've really thought about it. 

[Dave Gray]

I don't really want to argue this anymore.

If you can't see a difference in "I saw a lady with a red dress" and "I saw God", then I don't know what to tell you.

We're arguing how to argue.  What's the point?