?What evidence would you need to consider ?God? as factual??

That seems to be a fair non-denominational question. We are not being asked to believe in anything. Evidence is the common requisite for the proof of just about everything. A theory, by the nature of theories, may wait centuries for enough evidence to prove or disprove the assertions offered by the theory. Many people will die never knowing whether what they believed in so strongly was true or false.

To argue in favor of any position requires, in my opinion, the proponent be objective, unless, the situation consist of a true adversary situation so each side has the benefit of ideas formed to favor its views. In the law we have a term, Res Ipsa Loquiter. This is Latin for a common law concept meaning ?it speaks for itself?. In situations involving negligence the negligence can be so obvious, the facts so obvious, that negligence is obvious. An example would be when a surgeon amputates the wrong appendage. I recall one old case of a chair collapsing and the owner found negligent- he had the chair and was responsible for its service.

When it comes to God the mere fact of the existence of Matter, Earth and life forms fails to resolve anything because both science and a God offer a means for that to be. There should be some point of departure to argue for evidence that one idea or the other is more definitive or has more evidence in its support, Science has an explanation for life forms but nothing very specific for current humans. Initially, Evolution appears to be a potential explanation for all life forms but it is a very generalized approach lumping mankind in with frogs and apes. Now, we know we still have apes and gorillas around this Earth so at least some of our forefathers did not evolve into mankind. There is also the question of some missing links but that is too big an issue for this discussion.

Leaving science as not providing total evidence for the non-existence of God I will turn to what evidence remains to convince any one of the existence of God. The Bible offers our first source of evidence. We can conclude that humans that were not present when the activities recited were taking place wrote the Bible. This is hearsay but worth considering anyway as all that is available and historical. So the Bible says God created man in his own image. Mankind is here by design that is specific to mankind, an original item. Comparing all life forms we should find that mankind is truly unique and unlike any other known evolved creature. This is one point of departure from a generalized evolution of species that by nature cannot be presumed to single out one life form to be so unique. Also, if mankind is evolved from a specific life form similar to apes there must reasonably be something offered to disclose the point of separate evolutions. If evolution was working on all forms of life why are there not more speaking and reasoning animals like humans. If all life forms are in constantly progressive stages of improvement to survive over millions of years why did mankind get to be so far ahead of the other great varieties of life forms?

At this point, after all this wordage, I can only offer that science provides a generalized response to our origins while religion attempts to provide a more specific cause. To answer the original question seeking evidence for proof of Gods existence I, just for myself, would require a reason for our existence. Just because a creator can do something does not explain why he would do it. Neither science nor religious concepts adequately answer that question for me. Man-made ideas do not suffice. Please excuse the length of this reply, if not the content.