standard of evidence

[Rational AKD]

You don't think the lack of demonstrable evidence is a rational reason?

no, I don't. as I've said absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. if theism lacks substantiating evidence, all that shows is that the proposition hasn't been established to be true. but that doesn't automatically mean it's false or unlikely. if it did, you would have a conundrum when people say "theism is more rational because there's no evidence against it." you can't play this one sided street game. if some logical entailment applies to one side, it must apply to the other as well.

Maybe you put a lot confidence in the various philosophical arguments for the existence of god? They are demonstrably fallacious, and therefore unreasonable by definition.

you seem to have a lot of confidence. i'll have to put your claims to the test when I demonstrate the arguments I have.

Is more or less rational to believe in miracle claims? I'll bet you reject them for every other religion, but not your own.

I don't think other religions have met the burden of proof, but I think Christianity has.

Is it more or less rational to base your beliefs on ancient texts written by unknown authors, decades or more after the alleged events, than to think they are most likely unreliable?

so because it's old it's less useful? do you think that about Aristotle's three laws of logic: identity, non-contradiction, and exclusive middle? I think those are the most useful concepts we could think of and without them we can't establish any truths. I don't discredit them because they're old, or possibly poorly transmitted.

If you question this, think about all the 1000's of people that claim they've been abducted by UFO's. Do you give their accounts any credibility?

1000 people throughout various places and time periods claiming this? no, I don't think that's sufficient. 1000 people who suddenly claimed they were all simultaneously abducted to the same place and they all can corroborate each other's stories? yes, I think that's sufficient.

1. It explains a mystery with a bigger mystery.

irrelevant and non sequitur. quantum mechanics was a field that explained quite a bit but had way more questions than answers. just because the answer provokes a "bigger mystery" doesn't make it any less right.

2. Explaining something by saying that "god did it" does not really explain a thing. You might as well be saying "magic did it"

I understand the God of the gaps fallacy. but i'm not saying "I can't find evidence for X therefore God." my arguments would look like this: "we have evidence x and y which logically and inescapably leads us to proposition Z, which entails the existence of God."

3. There are natural explanations for almost everything attributed to gods. Where there isn't, the intellectually honest answer is "we don't know yet".

so what? this could just mean God created nature in a self functioning way. it doesn't show the proposition of God to be any less likely.

4. There is insufficient supporting evidence for the claim.

I already tackled this absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. i'm not gonna beat a dead horse.

A supernatural explanation is by default the more extraordinary claim

the funny thing is all of those even if they are true (which some of them are) they don't at all substantiate the proposition of God being extraordinary, or even less likely for that manner.

"I have a pet dog". Extraordinary or ordinary claim?

"I have a pet invisible dragon". Extraordinary or ordinary claim?

See, it is not too hard to tell the difference.

so you're saying an extraordinary claim is determined consistency with preconceived knowledge. the problem is all that knowledge has a potential of being wrong. you could think for the longest time "maggots spontaneously generate from raw meat" but that doesn't make the person who says "no they don't" subject to any more extraordinary evidence than any other claim. every claim is subject to a standard amount of evidence, regardless of how extraordinary they may seem.
secondly, if the proposition "God exists" is infinitely extraordinary requiring infinitely extraordinary evidence, then that makes the negating proposition "God does not exist" un-falsifiable. and you're trying to tell me this is just rational to believe claims that are un-falsifiable? I think you would quickly change your mind if the same logic was turned against you.