standard of evidence

[Rational AKD]

Because the examples better fit the god/no god choice that 2 options which have equal bearing.

but then you are faced with the problem of saying "no evidence for God therefore he doesn't exist" which is textbook Argumentum ad Ignorantiam fallacy. not to mention you are equivocating believability with rationality. that makes 2 fallacies with one sentence. you're on a roll.

"Whatever the atheist thinks is his minimum amount of evidence, if we provide it, they'll move the goalpost and make up a higher evidence requirement"... isn't that your corollary?

it's a suspicion of mine.

For me, I've said it before, and I'll say it again... if an entity which is "a necessary being who created the universe, who is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect." exists, I would only believe it does if it presented itself to me and, simultaneously (or with a bit of delay so he doesn't wake anyone up), to everyone else in the whole world. Spend some time with each and every one of us. Impart on us some of its infinite wisdom. Make all the magic tricks each one of us requires to accept that entity as a real magic man and creator of universes (how hard can it be to create a lump of gold?). And then, show up again with some periodicity, just to keep in touch and not get lost in past memories and provide the younger generations with the same level of experience.

even if all that happened, i'm sure you would prefer solipsism over theism.

Until the whole world provides accounts of the same experience, all gods are considered as man-made.

textbook Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

How did man get to acquire information about this god in which you all believe, while finding no physical interaction with said god?

the information did come from physical interaction with God, at least according to the bible. and no, i'm not begging the question. i'm answering yours which is structured to be an inside inquiry.