Married to a Christian

[tackattack]

---

which is why I continuously ask the bar to be set.

Um, no Tacky. What you continuously ask is that the bar be set lower. I doubt you will find many of us who would stretch the definition of "evidence" to include self-delusion and wishful-thinking.

---

---

You don't need to know where the bar is set, tack. Think about what evidence you would need from a Muslim or a Hindu to convince you that their choice is correct, and you've probably stumbled across what I need to believe in yours.

You say you could refer to your god as Zeus or whatever, well then why not do it? Why isn't it Zeus, apart from the world view that you already possess? Utter nonsense.

I think it's worth emphasising the point that you were trying to make, that you are a rational person with rational arguments. And so far we've got special pleading, argument from incredulity and argument from personal experience. A trinity of highly unimpressive and irrational arguments, and why you think that's rational, I have no clue. Shape up. Put yourself in my shoes, or imagine the same arguments being made by any other religious type, and tell me if you'd be convinced.

When you say you've had a prayer answered, I'm asking for something that could not conceivably have happened if not for divine intervention. Here are some examples:

You getting a bonus at work = not a miracle
Your kid getting better a bit earlier than expected = not a miracle
A cancer going into remission = not a miracle

A man's leg growing back having been cut off = a miracle
A river of water turning into blood instantaneously (claimed to have happened) = a miracle
A bush spontaneously combusting and talking (claimed to have happened) = a miracle

There's your bar. If you think I'm being unreasonable, get on your knees and ask your all powerful God to stop being so fucking limited in his powers.

---

I don't call my God Zeus, because Zeus already has a definition. I don't think my God throws lightning bolts or reigns over olympian gods or poisoned or even had a father of his own), my definition best fits with the Abrahamic God.

If your standard is for naturally impossible I have nothing I can give you from personal experience. However what about someone who can see without pupils, bodies that don't decay or statues that bleed, cry and sweat?

I understand the reservations of a lot of the skeptics here to not consider personal experience as any kind of evidence. The problems I have with that are that then I either am delusional, a liar or have no evidence. I have reasons for my belief, and they're founded in observation and experience and were reasoned. I understand that atheists don't want to accept them as evidence for them to believe, however they are completely valid reasons for me to believe and thus qualify for at, the very least, subjective indicative evidence to me. I don't think any hard atheist on here could ever accept personal experience as evidence for something as grandeous of a conclusion as God. I'm OK with that, but what do you give faith to and what do you not give faith to? I'm not saying that something mysterious has to be God or supernatural, but it seems like you and others are saying something mysterious can't possibly work or be true.