Hello soulcalm17

[Sheldon]

unless sufficient objective evidence can be demonstrated that a deity is possible, and exists

I'm curious why you think that a God, if it existed, would be the sort of thing that could be demonstrated with objective evidence. It looks to me as though you may be begging the question or assuming the conclusion (Latin: petītiō principiī), an informal fallacy. 

I neither asserted nor implied any such conclusion, so this seems like a straw man? Though I am intrigued as to why anyone would think I would set a different standard for god claims, than all others? If one cares about being open minded, then one ought to strive to avoid and remove bias in one's beliefs.

Belacqua

I say this because in the Western theological and philosophical tradition, no one says that God is known through empirical evidence. 

  That's not true, plenty of people make claims about the Christian deity that are empirically falsifiable, and that it intervenes in the natural physical world, and such claims are ubiquitous in the bible. However I don't care how low others set the bar for their own credulity, they can believe the moon is made of cheese if it makes them happy. 

Beginning with Plato and Aristotle, on through Plotinus, and of course all the way through Spinoza and Hegel, God is not a sensible object (that is, knowable through the senses) but an intelligible object (known only through the mind). 

 If you think they have compelling arguments for a deity then present them, and I'll take a look, but I am dubious that one can argue an abstract idea into objective reality, especially in the complete absence of any objective evidence. One could believe just about anything in this way surely?

No philosopher you can name relies on the "we have no other explanation therefore God" fallacy that you point to.

Since I never claimed otherwise, this seems like another straw man? Though I find such a sweeping and unevidenced claim dubious, my explanation of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy was aimed at those who have used it in this very thread, and of course I have seen countless apologists use it, even professional apologists like William Lane Craig, who also professes to be a professional philosopher btw. However not all philosophers agree that a deity exists, that's a given. If you think you have a compelling argument for a deity, then by all means present it, I will as always keep an open mind, Though As I said, I am dubious that in the complete absence of objective evidence that one can argue an abstract idea into existence. 

Some theologians rely on prophecy or revelation for specific aspects of their God -- for example, that he is a trinity. But all of them also hold that through natural theology -- without special revelation -- the existence of God can be proven. Just not with the sort of evidence that science uses. 

Forgive me, but some people deny objective facts like species evolution, and the shape of the earth, why should this be relevant to me trying to set as objective a standard as I can for credulity? Also those theologians of course don't agree, they use identical or very similar arguments and arrive at very different religions and deities, that does not seem like a reliable methodology to me, but then they have long revered the vapidity of subjective faith, which is useless in establishing truth. 

FYI I never mentioned science, and I have already explained at length why I find claims that prophecy evidence a deity to be irrational. Revelation of course is entirely subjective, and cannot be otherwise, it again could be used to claim just about anything, do you believe claims for revealed truths from all religions? If not then you cannot objectively use the same claim elsewhere, as this kind of bias is the very definition of a closed mind.

If you think you can "prove" (I normally eschew that word in debate) a deity exists, by all means have at it.

For these people, demanding empirical evidence for God 

Except I  am not demanding it for them, am I?

I'm only pointing out that your demand for a certain kind of evidence leaves unaddressed all of the philosophical and theological reasons people have for believing in God.

Well to be fair, you don't know what I have and have not addressed, but yes I think sufficient objective evidence is a higher standard for credulity, that is why I set it. This is not say that philosophy is not a useful discipline, but it has been superseded by the methodologies of science for example (since you bring it up), precisely because the scientific methods provide results that more reliably reflect objective reality. Though it is worth noting here, that it was you who brought science up, and not me. 

I can only address the claims and arguments people make of course, but since my own threshold for credulity is that sufficient objective evidence be demonstrated to support beliefs, then that is my first question. Others may set whatever standard they are minded to, and pick which philosophers and which arguments they find compelling.