DrYaboll: I am just gonna reply to this as I dont have time to respond properly.
You and I clearly have a different definition of [unqeustionable] evidence (proof). An evidence would be a clear proof for their existence: a footstep marked in stone, fossilized skeletons on some other planet (evidence of past existence) or direct contact with them (a photo, a specimen brought to earth, an alien spaceship etc etc), with none of which did we come across.
You're talking about direct evidence, but there is also indirect evidence where the truth of something can be inferred from other facts. The size of the universe is indirect evidence for the existence of aliens because you are inferring from that that aliens exist. Evidence can always be misinterpreted, so at most we can be very confident that what we think the evidence indicates to be true corresponds to objective reality. As a result, evidence can be misinterpreted to indicate thing that are true that are actually false, but that doesn't disqualify us from It being evidence for that. In other words, the size of the universe is evidence for the existence of aliens regardless of whether or not it is objectively true that they exist.
......and no, I dont deem as evidence statements of some lunatics who claim that they've been kidnapped by aliens etc, as they dont have anything credible, unquestionable to back their statements with (same as you, lol).
Even with people who we consider to be lunatics, there is something that caused them to believe that they were kidnapped by aliens, and whatever that is, it is evidence for their belief. However, as I said, having evidence for something does not mean it is objectively true. It could conceivably be the case that it is true that they were kidnapped by aliens, but we must still evaluate this evidence in light of other evidence that gives us much stronger reasons to doubt their credibility until they have produced stronger evidence.
What I've presented is an unproven theory, an assumption, without any evidence to back it with.
You can also take this as an indirect response to some of the other statements.
Someone thinking that sth is true =/= evidence.
(www.dictionary.com)
ev·i·dence [ev-i-duhns]
noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
Evidence is what indicates to us that something is true, but it might not indicate that it is true strongly enough to justify your belief. At the point that you think is strong enough to justify your belief, it has become ground for your belief and you consider it to be proved. Again, the things that you consider to be proved do not necessarily have to correspond to objective reality. Furthermore, it would not be possible for someone to think sth is true without anything indicating to them that it is true.
