Exactly. That, plus the evidence has to be proportionate to the claim. If you were presented with pictures of hoof prints, what would be the most rational explanation (ie the one requiring the fewest assumptions):
A) horse
B) zebra
C) unicorn
Though all of the above fit the evidence, only one of them cannot rationally be concluded without corroboration. Thus taking that conclusion as your starting assumption is neither justified nor rational. Same goes with god claims; the answer to the question "what would you consider evidence" is "whatever supports your claim whilst making the fewest assumptions".
A) horse
B) zebra
C) unicorn
Though all of the above fit the evidence, only one of them cannot rationally be concluded without corroboration. Thus taking that conclusion as your starting assumption is neither justified nor rational. Same goes with god claims; the answer to the question "what would you consider evidence" is "whatever supports your claim whilst making the fewest assumptions".
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
