The Problem with Christians

[AAA]

I'm just going to continue asking this until I get an answer:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I'd say the claim of a creator/designer is pretty extraordinary.  AAA, you admit that you require (what you consider in your mind) to be rigorous scientific evidence in order to accept such a claim yourself.

Going forward from there...further explanations of this creator's identity, disposition, attributes, motives, behaviors, and history are exponentially MORE detailed; MORE complicated, and are therefore even more extraordinary than simply the claim that he exists.  

It follows that the evidence required to accept claims regarding the identity of the designer should be at LEAST as rigorous as what was used to determine he exists in the first place.  Things like testimonials, and personal revelation should not meet your standards.

So can either of you (3A or Atlas) please explain to me how you psychologically justify arbitrarily downgrading your standards for evidence in regards to your creator's identity?  I honestly don't understand.

 I thought I responded to this. The reason I don't require the same amount of evidence to conclude the identity of the designer is because it is infinitely more difficult to assess the identity of the person who designed something that to just realize that it was designed. It is unreasonable to require extremely rigorous evidence for something that is so difficult to test. However, I think there is reasonable evidence that Jesus existed and really was God. Also the Bible makes a lot of predictions (not all of them are those really vague ones) that have come true. Maybe it's my inner Pascal, but after accepting that there likely was a designer, and that there does seem to be some significant foresight in the Bible, I am willing to place my bet with the Christian God.