NO - what is evidence to one is not necessarily evidence to another, and there could be no way for me to validate yours, or you you to validate mine. Faith, and its actuation in humans, is not cut and dried by a dictionary definition. So, yes.
Evidence is a body of information that supports a certain conclusion regardless of who examines it. Evidence cannot support contradictory or opposing conclusions. You cannot have a dream or vision and claim this as proof that the things you dreamt are literally true and factual.
Correct to an extent, but only in part. One does not get to create his/her own tight little definitions simply to prove one's point. Evidence can simply be that, and it does not have to be in a "body" and it does not have to support any specific conclusion in order to be evidence. It may be helpful in proving a point, or it may clarify toward some end, or it may be additive to an eventual conclusion, and other such things. We often hear the official report "so far, the evidence is inconclusive". A person may possess a bunch of evidence about something while it still is not a body that supports a specific conclusion - and very well have faith in that conclusion. Faith and evidence are not mutually exclusive.
Tight definition? Science cannot function if each researcher has their own definition or idea of what evidence is. The Law does not work on the principle of what is considered evidence one day but not the next.
Evidence is not something that works one moment but not the next.
The laws of physics don't alter for the benefit of a believer, this one moment, that the next.
The world is what it is regardless of who believes what.
If someone has evidence for the existence of their version of God, anyone should be able to examine that evidence. What the believer feels is evidence may be mistaken. What it says in our holy books is not evidence for the truth of their claims.
Interesting views - seems to be nothing worth arguing but would point out that you open with a comment about the function of science. All well and good, if you are conducting a rigorous scientific experiment, go ahead and define terms and evidence any way you wish - it is your science. But, this discussion hs not been about science - it has been about faith. My experienced observations have been made in that light.
Actually, evidence can support contradictory and opposing conclusions. That was the quality of the evidence and the quality of the interpretation of said evidence matter. It's also why I as for "good evidence" and not just "evidence". Let me give a example from an actual call in T.V. show. A lady calls in claiming she can prove the existence of God. He proof? She was driving down the road and low tire pressure warning light went on. She wasn't close to home was worried about being able to safely drive her vehicle, so she prayed to God for a solution. At the next exit she pulled into a gas station, and the gas station attendant aired up her tires for he. This was her "proof" God existed. I'd seriously question both the quality of this evidence and her interpretation, and if it's anywhere nearly sufficient to prove her extraordinary claim.
That's the issue with so much of what theist consider "evidence". They present poor interpretations of poor evidence, and often, it's the worst possible kind of evidence, that which cannot be independently verified. This evidence is even worse than that in the example above, because even though her argument is so terrible, at least we could verify the existence of the gas station and gas station attendant if we cared to go interview him just after the event.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
