Atheism is the null hypothesis. A null hypothesis stands until there is evidence to support another hypothesis. There is no such evidence hence the null hypothesis stands.

In courtroom terms the null hypothesis is the presumption of innocence. The Universe is judged innocent of a deity until you can demonstrate that there is such a deity. You cannot, therefore the presumption there is no such deity stands

Your "Error #2" is frankly an embarrassment.

You commit the historians fallacy of assuming a current understanding was also the understanding of the people who wrote the Bible. You ignore the fact that their understanding was of multiple invisible heavens (as cited by Paul) below a solid firmament upon which the stars were mounted

Next you quote mine to prove you concepts ignoring the contradictory passages showing a very physical, mountain (not cloud) living deity.

The biggest deception in this passage is your attempt to deny the possibility of scientific observation of the effects of deistic activity upon the physical world. Frankly it is just special pleading

Your "Error #3" (deliberately?) distorts the truism used by Sagan. You ignore entirely that you are making an extraordinary claim - that your specific deity does exist and is the sole deity in the universe out of the 100s of possible that might exist and the 1000s that might have existed. Please note that to prove this to atheists and all other believers of other gods you would need extraordinary evidence.

You, of course, ignore the fact you do not have even ordinary evidence. You have no eyewitness reports at first or second hand and no physical evidence. All of the reports are at best 3rd hand and tainted beyond redemption by the considerable evidence of later tampering.

Your "Error #4" Is, as you admit at the start, just a repeat of your Error #3 but you smarten up slightly by asserting that faith need no proof. This is true. But of course you ignore the vast hordes of people who do not have your faith but another. You ignore those, currently a minority, who do not have any faith. To change the mind of these others evidence will be required.

The distasteful alternative is that you claiming that your God is so incredibly petty as to only grant faith to the tiny minority of fundamentalist Christians who believe as you do.You may call that faith, I call it hubris.

It's like obscenity/porn solely in that you'll never get a 100% objective definition.

But I highly doubt that anyone believes that, I, personally have been dead for three years, say. It's because it goes against what we know of the known world, even comas of that length have reversible effects with some dispute as to whether that applies even if you're a demi-god. I'm not so... But I'm sure they would believe that I went to a restaurant on little evidence.

Sean Carroll in his recent book talks about measuring extraordinary relative to your prior convictions. So what it takes to convince you is relative to what you already believe. But of course then you get a pretty subjective definition.

Way late I know and you'll probably never see this but

Extraordinary is kind of like porn: it's very much a ... I'll-know-it-when-I see-it thing.

Claim #1: I went to a restaurant last night.

Other Claims: I was dead for a while [1 minute/5 minute/1 day, three days/a week/three months/a year/three years]and then got completely better

Readers: Which claims do you believe on my word and why? What sort of evidence would you need to accept my other claims and why?

But here's a thought experiment with regard to God:

The vast majority of people know what a tornado is and they *agree on the definition* I have to wonder about the quality of evidence if most of the people that agree that God exists can't agree on the nature of Him.

I do have to wonder if some of the intellectual atheists you mentioned consider it obvious in the same way that they consider there is no tooth fairy/no Santa Claus.

So its a claim forced through legal process of atheists using a science that at its very beginning is exactly the same as creation by an act of God, or an act of nothing! Boylth have burden of proof.

Atheists need to prove the nothing or both have equal place to be taught in every place side by side so the student can decide without bias to 1 belief over the other!!!!

**
1 - Nothing exists if No-Maximality is exemplified

2 - Maximal greatness is possible only if Maximality is exemplified.

3 - Without Maximality, then Maximal Greatness is impossible!

4 - Since Maximality exists, ONLY those who are made in the image of Maximality can achieve the highest possible Maximum Greatness in the image of Maximality!

5 - Those who are made in the image of Maximality achieve Maximum Greatness by an ever present goal within themselves, and set before themselves ever reaching for their Maximum Greatness with standards reflective of the image of Maximality!

6 - The goal to achieve Maximum Greatness can never achieved if Maximality is altered by a lesser image of Maximality in any and every possible world!

7 - Maximum Greatness is achieved by reaching it's Maximum Potential in it's Maximum Purpose through achieving it's highest possible likeness to an unaltered image of Maximality.
**

If you just don't want to answer the question, that's fine, no atheist thinks you will go to hell. If you don't have an answer, fine too, atheists don't attempt an answer. You can question yourself and your claims as rigorously or as lightly as you wish but you are only evading your own examination, you can't evade that of others.

When you set the "burden of proof" low, the credibility of your truth suffers, you open up the door for anyone to claim anything since there is no standard of proof. The "spaghetti monster" crowd or the Mormons can claim their revelations, their miracles and their truth and you can only judge them by your weak standards where every test is too rigorous.
Few atheists care whether you lower your standards for yourself but they have to weigh the claims of Mormons, Hindus, Rastafarians and witches, your "burden of proof" would mean accepting all of them.

Muelhhauser seems to be simply noting how God in the Bible is far more apparent-i.e. he actively and ostentatiously intervenes. From what I've read he was indeed thought to dwell in the sky-"the heavens" originally meant that. I think that the concept of God has indeed changed over time.

Also, who exactly says they would refuse to believe in a god, no matter what? It's often stated people could refuse to believe, but at that point it would be like them not believing in the sun. A distinction must also be made with belief and worship-as the Bible itself says, when noting that the demons themselves believe in God.

Edited for clarity.

Thank you.