[quote=So Boerd]How decidedly irrational. Using a purely subjective and opinionated judgement to determine how much proof is needed? Irrational indeed.[/quote]

[b]#1:[/b] You appear to be angry. :hehe Calm down.

[b]#2:[/b] Subjective? Opinionated? Strong words that ultimately make no sense in this context. I'm stating that the more "out there" a claim is, the more evidence is required for me to believe it. The more fantastical something is, the more evidence I need. Lots of people named Susie? Easy to believe. Susie being the one person on the planet capable of instantly combusting people with her mind? Much harder to believe, requires more evidence. 

[quote=So Boerd]Ridiculousness varies wildly from person to person. A rational iindividual would stack consequence against evidence.[/quote]

God created the world in seven days. That has pretty significant consequences. So I need more evidence. No evidence. Funny that.

Apply the same logic to pretty much every other God claim on the planet for whatever fantastical things they did.

[quote=So Boerd]I offered you stronger evidence for God im the hypothetical, so no, that will not do.[/quote]

What?... Hypothetical is not evidence. The Bank Robber physically exists. He was captured. You can go see him. Right now. Your hypothetical does not exist, it's purely hyperbole, in the same vein as saying that elves exist because forests do and elves live in forests. Can you disprove that?

[quote=So Boerd]
Not observing something does not mean it does not exist, it means you have not observed it.
[/quote]

Not observing =/= no evidence.

I have not personally observed an emu, but I know they exist, because there's plenty of evidence for them if I go look them up.

On the flip side, until I know something exists, until there's evidence for it, according to the rational world view, it doesn't exist... [i]Yet[/i]. If someone has eye witness testimony of something, then it's logical to go see if it's true. If it is, then it exists. Adjust world view to include it. Move forward.

There are plenty of claims about a god existing, and yet, no evidence. So I feel no need to adjust my world view to include it. Move forward.

Again, as I've said before, I'm not afraid to be wrong. If it turns out there's evidence for a god we haven't found yet, and we discover it, then I will do the rational thing: Adjust world view, include a god, move on. [b]However[/b], I don't live in the future, I live in the present. There is no evidence for a god. Ergo, do not include god. Move on.