No, I said that you have offered no more than what the type of belief called faith is fundamentally based on. If you have something else, it's up to you to present it, because it's impossible for me to otherwise know what it is.
I also said that effort, work and the degree of examination of what is fundamentally just testimony is irrelevant. That's because effort and the results of any examination of testimony can not change the nature of what testimony is. Effort and the nature of any examination can only effect the testimony itself.
"You wanted "evidence" for my "claim" that: If God did not exist, neither would the world. All I have is witness testimony — and the fact that I can see and appreciate that this world in which we live is not a "garbage heap strewn at random." But to say as much is still "only" witness testimony. "
Yes, it is only witness testimony. What's wrong with that? That's all Jesus had and He was pleased with it. Matt 11:25-26 "At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure."
"What sort of evidence satisfies your discriminating taste?
It depends on what the claim is that one is presenting evidence for. If it's a claim regarding some element of reality, I expect real evidence that can be examined by the scientific method and logical coherence of any testimony with that evidence and the total picture the real world presents itself as. I also expect perfect logical coherence with that rational picture of the world in any testimonial claims.
"Can the scientific method even DEAL with questions like this?"
Yes. The rationality and scientific method allows the nature of the real world, the universe to be seen and understood. It allows man to be known and understood. Any testimony can be weighed against that knowledge and understanding of reality for rational/logical coherence.
Good grief spunkets, what are you talking about?
As written, it sounds like a bunch of "hyper-rationalistic" jibberish to me....
Could you try again — please put that statement in plain English?