The Reasons to Believe in Yahweh

[median]

Do you believe the Gettysburg address occurred? If so, based on what evidence?

You are attempting a false analogy (attempting to compare supernatural claims to non-supernatural claims). Until you can establish there is any such thing as the supernatural (or what that even means), there are no grounds for comparing your extraordinary bible claims (like any other religious text claims) to ordinary claims.

Textual accounts of the supernatural are not sufficient to establish the supernatural. It doesn't work for any other religion, and it doesn't work for yours. Remember, the burden of proof is on you, not me. So stop trying to shift the burden.

Do you believe every claim you hear?

No. This is a false bifurcation fallacy.

Nope! It's not a false dilemma because there was no absolute exclusion in my rebuttal. Get real dude.

So they’re extraordinary and unexplained, yet not miraculous. Can you define miraculous for us?

LMAO. This is awesome! You want me to define your terms for you?? Wow. If you think the miraculous is nothing more than extraordinary rare occurrences then you DON'T have miracles (by any classic definition). For that, you need a deity. Demonstrate your deity.

I haven’t said you should lower your standards of evidence. You’re telling me that I should raise mine. Should I do so because you say so, and USE lots of CAPS?

When your standards of evidence stand in hypocrisy, I would say absolutely yes. You should raise your standards of evidence (as you JUST admitted that you have lowered your standards of evidence for your religion).

I can use whatever method of communication I choose.

I find that hard to believe. You don’t know that god doesn’t exist, yet you come across as a strong atheist, rather than an agnostic.

I know you find it hard to believe, and that's because you've lowered your standards of evidence (based upon an assumption you are trying to defend). You put the cart before the horse and can't understand why many critical thinkers won't follow in lock step. Duh!

Second, you (like many apologists) are quite confused as to what an Agnostic is (let alone an atheist). Agnosticism goes to what you "know". Theism or Atheism goes to what you "believe" about a deity. Thus, those terms are not mutually exclusive. If one says they do not have knowledge of a deity they are Agnostic, and if they also say they do not hold a belief in a deity they are Atheist as well (i.e. - Agnostic Atheist). There are at least 4 possibilities:

-Gnostic Theist (knows and has belief)
-Agnostic Theist (does not know and has belief)
-Gnostic Atheist (knows and has no belief)
-Agnostic Atheist (does not know and has no belief)

What evidence do you have for that position? [that religious faith is not tentative]

The burden of proof is on you, not me. Remember? If you think religious faith IS tentative, then demonstrate it. Because what you have shown, thus far, is quite the opposite. You've lowered your standards of evidence (admittedly so) and are trying to defend your religious position with attempts to shift the burden of proof. You've made claims that "miracles" have occurred. Now demonstrate how you know they are miraculous from a deity.

Arguments from Ignorance do not count as evidence.

I’m talking about abiogenesis, as I noted.

You can talk about abiogensis, or any other phenomena you want to, the default position is still "We don't know", not "Yahweh did it".

If you want to quote the actual passages, we can discuss. You omit the bluster and actually post the passage, like this:
1 Tim 5
23 No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.

Why do you think Paul suggested a medicinal approach, rather than a trip to the faith healer?

WOW. You seem to really have a hard time with this. YOU have made the positive claim that miracles have occurred, and when confronted with passages in your own book you demonstrate classic skirting, dodging, spin, and equivocation (all while readily ADMITTING that you have lowered your standards of evidence).

It is not my job to say why something in YOUR alleged holy book states X. You can choose to spin the bible in whatever direction you choose (as is so typical of all versions of Christendom - who disagree with each other ad infinitum) but you do so in demonstration that you have ASSUMED it from the outset (i.e. - you put the cart before the horse), which is hypocrisy because you do NOT do this with other religions.

Do you assume the Book of Mormon is true when they tell you? How about the Koran? The Bhaghavad Gita? Your hidden premise is what you need to start being honest about (i.e. - the real reason you came to believe).

No, I’ve applied the same standard to Islam and Christianity.

LOL. I'd like to see you demonstrate that one - and I'm sure the Muslims would strongly disagree. In any case, you've lowered your standard of evidence and admitted it. Credulity. WOW.