The terms are usually either correlation or concordance. The difference between "strong" and "weak" is defined by each group for their own field and usually is determined by what the first investigator did. In most fields the boundary between "strong" and "weak" is 5% - that is, if there is less than a 5% chance of rejecting a true statement, then that is "strong" evidence. If the risk of rejecting a true statement is greater than 5%, then it is "weak." That line is easily determined if the data is numerical or categorical, but more difficult, or even impossible, if it is neither.
Statement: There is a god!
Somehow we must devise a test that can distinguish between "god" and "no god." But suppose our test is less than perfect. There is an element in the process that sometimes generates a wrong answer. By some mathematical or statistical process we can determine what the proportion of wrong answers would be in the absence of god. Then the question comes down to: how many times must our test show that there is a god before we have overcome the element that is generating the wrong answers? The more times the "god" result occurs, the stronger the evidence. In a test like this, it is all about beating the odds (with God's help, if you like).
The rub is that there are a lot of different opinions about what one can do to gain Jesus' favor. Some people kill in the name of Jesus (The Crusaders, the Inquisition, anti-abortion activists) and some help others (Soup lines, homeless shelters, free medical clinics). So I guess the real question is What Would Jesus Do? Or for some people, Who Would Jesus Bomb? Both sides try to make the case for whatever they're doing. Personally, I'll help serve the soup. But that's just personal prejudice.