Street Epistemology - Practice

[RoadRunner79]

I have a cat as well.... but I'm am more interested in you answering the questions please. 
How do you justify moving the goal posts? 

Personally my position is that the difference in belief, comes not because there is more reason to do so (what we are talking about is considering the same reasons); but, because we are more willing to take it on faith (or make assumptions).  I believe that reasons and logic should be held consistently, and equally.   Would you agree?

OK we agree it is a trivial assertion.

What if I were to claim that I had an invisible dragon in my garage? Would you simply accept that as easily? Or would you have some very pointed questions about such an assertion?

"How do you justify moving the goal posts?"
I am not. I am demonstrating the point that the nature of the claim will set the evidential bar required.

Yes, you want to move the goal posts or raise the bar (same thing).  What is the nature that you think is different?  To me, they are a similar type of claim, that should require similar evidence or reason.  Do you just "raise the bar" for claims that you wish not to believe?

"Personally my position is that the difference in belief, comes not because there is more reason to do so (what we are talking about is considering the same reasons); but, because we are more willing to take it on faith (or make assumptions).  I believe that reasons and logic should be held consistently, and equally.   Would you agree?" 

No. If that were true, you should give my garage dragon equal credibility with my cat. I bet you do not do so. Or perhaps you do for all I know.

I don't think that you read what I said.  I probably would make assumptions or grant on good faith, that you have a cat, whereas the claim that you have a dragon may raise some more questions.  But the point, is, that the reasons are the same for both.    Would you agree, that reasons and logic should be held consistently and equally?