>

The religious are not the only ones pushing unfalsifiable beliefs into the realm of public policy. You'll find that on both sides of the spectrum if you look for it, especially the extreme ones.
Of course there isn't. That's why it's called faith. >

Well, some religious practitioners dispute that this is the meaning of faith. Many Christians, for example, claim that faith is trust based on the evidence. For example, the Christian philosopher John DePoe (who I respect a lot) wrote:

One final objection to Classical Evidentialism that I wish to address is that religious faith by its nature is opposed to evidence. What I am requiring of religious beliefs, some might say, is like asking oil and water to mix. Knowledge acquired through evidential arguments, they claim, cannot be a matter of faith.  
At the heart of this objection is an assumption about the nature of faith, namely that faith is an act of belief without evidence or even against evidence. I reject this view of faith. Faith is better understood (at least in part) as the dispositional characteristic to trust and persevere in one’s religious beliefs. Faith is a virtue that allows believers to remain steadfast in their religious beliefs because they have good reason to do so. (Debating Christian Religious Epistemology, p.27) >

There are circumstantial evidence, like the evidence of the existence of Jesus, David, the flood (probably on a smaller scale, but still significant), the plagues in Egypt and the genetic Eve (mithocondrial Eve) etc.
Do these things serve as an undisputable evidence of God as described in the Abrahamic religions? No, it only serves to show that the events described in the Torah, Bible and Qur'An have their roots in reality.
This means that there are believers ( there are a lot of believers, who simply have blind faith) who believe/have faith because of circumstantial evidences.
As said these are circumstantial evidences, however those can be powerful and a lot of scientific discoveries or legal judgements are based on circumstantial evidence (two good example would be the existence of black holes for the former or fingerprints and DNA tests in the latter). >

This feels a bit like saying that Spider Man is real because some of the events in the comics happened in New York and New York is real. >

No it's saying that the siege of Troy happened, because they found the ruins of the city. Now did it happen as described in the Illiad? Probably not. >

Right. So someone looks at the Illiad, finds evidence that the siege of Troy happened and concludes that Aphrodite actually exists. >

Well you can certanly think this way. 
I would say that someone finds the ruins of Troy, knows that kidnapping potential brides were a thing and also finds signs of an eartquake, if said person also knows that Poseidon wasn't only the god of the sea, but of earthquakes and that his sacred animal was the horse.
Based on these he/she goes to the conclusion that the Illiad was based on truth at least in the sense that the cause of the siege was likely real, the siege itself was likely real and probably the Troyan horse was real.
I would argue that the conclusion that the horse wasn't a trick, but a tribute to Poseidon for his intervention is logical. Also if said person has an inclination toward the spiritual side of life he/she might believe that the fall of Troy was due to divine intervention.
As I said in the last sentence, it's a belief, however one that has circumstantial evidence behind it. Is it true? Probably not, however it is a logical conclusion. >

Is it, though? Is it really a logical conclusion that Aphrodite exists because she's in the Illiad and we can verify that some of the things in the Illiad happened? >

Okay, first of all I didn't mention Aphrodite at all. Even the greeks didn't have a universal belief, just like modern religions doesn't have universal belief.
However, allow me to ask why the proposition I described would be illogical? >

I mentioned Aphrodite originally, because she does appear in the Illiad. I thought that you were addressing my comment, not some other thing.So it remains, if the fact that some mundane things in the Bible are reasonable evidence that God exists, then surely the fact that some mundane things in the Illiad being true are reasonable evidence that Aphrodite exists. >

Conclusive is a higher standard than we hold for practically anything. Science rarely, if ever, proclaims conclusive knowledge, almost always allowing for unobserved variable(s), evidence, data, etc. that would debunk current theories. We don't have conclusive evidence that consciousness exists, macro evolution has ever happened or we all didn't just come into existence a day or two ago in motion with a developed memory of life lived before. All opinions and beliefs on these and many other topics are based on a lower standard of belief than your CMV seems to expect of a deity existing.
Because of this, I ask - how is this view profitable to any discussions on these topics? How is conclusive a valid standard? I disagree with the implied validity of the observation you hold in your view.
Even in Christian teaching, Lucifer/Satan obviously didn't think the deity he interacted with was compellingly and conclusively all supreme, hence the attempt to usurp the Creator of the Universe. Even if you don't believe anything else in that worldview I would think we can all agree one individual's "conclusive" is the next individual's "not-even-compelling" and often that has less to do with the evidence than the framework from which the evidence is being evaluated.
All that to say-how can you be sure that your framework of expectations for what "conclusive evidence" a deity should provide would be considered valid and binding by any deity that may exist for such a deity to be just in judging you for rejecting the evidence they have given?
Personally, I find some intelligent design arguments quite compelling, especially around DNA's similarity to programming and the structure and design that implies. I think many scientists have failed to really evaluate some trends (frequency and in content) in near death experiences across cultures that suggest life after death is a more evidence based belief than not. I find some deists destressingly hypocritical and incoherent. But I find that true of some atheists and agnostics as well. I pray and study, and have had a number of experiences that wouldn't provide anyone else conclusive proof, but have affirmed over and over that there is a God who communicates with those who listen with their soul/spirit. I pray you'll come to know truth-whether it is what you want it to be or not. >

PART 1

Conclusive is a higher standard than we hold for practically anything. Science rarely, if ever, proclaims conclusive knowledge, almost always allowing for unobserved variable(s), evidence, data, etc.

I think that's a misunderstanding of what I mean by "conclusive." I don't mean it is undeniable, incorrigible, indubitable, unrevisable or absolute like proving a mathematical theorem. As I said, by conclusive I simply mean the "publicly accessible data makes the proposition significantly more likely than its contrary." In science, the data does usually make the hypothesis in question significantly more likely than its contrary. Similarly, that's the standard reasonable people use in real life when they have to make important decisions based on the data.

We don't have conclusive evidence that consciousness exists, macro evolution has ever happened or we all didn't just come into existence a day or two ago in motion with a developed memory of life lived before.

It is a category error to ask for empirical evidence of the existence of one's own consciousness. Consciousness isn't supposed to exist outside of our minds (like God or the external world). As Descartes pointed out, self-consciousness is the only thing that cannot be rationally denied, as one would have to affirm it in the act of denial -- since one is using it to know anything. It is a self-evident truth or a transcendental category, as Kant would put it.
Now, you chose the worst example possible to support your view, namely, a skeptical scenario regarding the past existence of the world. Even if we concede that there is no conclusive evidence the past happened (as our memory tells us), that is not relevant to anything; it is just an amusing philosophical problem. If one uses these skeptical scenarios as their standard of evidential evaluation, they may just as well believe that after we die, we'll be transported to a magical realm populated by beautiful fairies and dragons. No evidence? No problem! After all, you can't provide evidence the world wasn't created 5 minutes ago; you have blind faith in your memory!
With regards to the theory of Neo-Darwinian evolution, there is overwhelming empirical evidence that it is correct. Today that's virtually indisputable. >

Many deistic belief systems posit a deity outside our reality that has set in motion or ordered our reality, yet remains outside it. So I ask - how is it not a category error to ask for conclusive proof within the system of an entity outside the system of our reality?
Isn't that like a gold fish in a bowl saying the glass blower that made the bowl doesn't exist simply because they don't have proof? One can argue all day that the glass bowl is proof, but if the fish has convinced itself of another possible explanation that needs no glass blower an eternal skeptic they will be. After all it has observed how calcium and lime deposits build up on the glass bowl-so taken to it's logical extension, the bowl may likely have grown up over time in the same way. >

As you hinted in your analogy, the world itself could be the evidence of this designer deity -- so, it is not a category error. If it is indeed conclusive evidence, the fact that the pig-headed/closed-minded person refuses to evaluate the evidence rationally is no reason to think it is a category error.
I have a better example of a deity whose existence couldn't even in principle be evaluated empirically. Suppose a deity exists, but it did not create our world. In fact, it never even interacted with it -- and never will. Well, in this case, it would be a category error to ask for empirical evidence. But my definition of 'god' in OP already rules out this kind of deity. So, it is not really relevant to our discussion. >

In an infinite universe, all things are possible! >

I've read no good arguments against "How does something come from nothing". Every response I've seen involves a supernatural explanation. >

Perhaps the world did not come from nothing because it always existed. What is wrong with this possibility? >

It's a supernatural explanation not based in any scientific reality and doesn't answer the question why if eternal does it exist in the first place? Why would this eternal thing exist? The only answer that makes any sense is something outside of it. >


Whether this is supported by scientific evidence isn't relevant, as we're considering speculative possibilities here (speculative just like god's existence).  In order to conclude that only god could be the reason for the world's existence, the competing hypotheses must be refuted.
You presented no reason to think this is a "supernatural" explanation. In fact, since it doesn't involve any immaterial entities, it is by definition natural.
The naturalist may ask the same question about god ("Why does god exist?"), and the same answer may be given with respect to the material world. "Because god is necessary." -- "Because the universe is necessary." >


speculative possibilities

It's speculative but I think you have to choose the most fulfilling of the speculative answers. Eternal universe still leaves the question of why does something exist of nothing.  

it is by definition natural.

There is nothing in the universe that is eternal. Eternal is not based on science. It's inventing an answer out of nothing and one that isn't even fulfilling.

Why does god exist?

God is eternal and is not based in the material world so he doesn't need a scientific explanation. If you want a naturalist answer you need one based in reality not invented. >

Only God can change your view. >

I drag the famous quote: "Absence of Evidence does not mean Evidence of Absence"
For example, I can say, "I think aliens exist."
We have zero proof as of yet that aliens do exist.
Would we be able to conclusively prove that aliens exist/don't exist? No. We have theories as to why we don't see aliens, but no evidence either way.
The point is that we don't have proof of a god. We also don't have proof of there not being a god because proof is impossible to find as that knowledge would imply omnipotence- thus proving a god (you) exists. 
To be reductive, if I tell you, "taking this medicine helps you see better in darkness- only when its completely dark", you'd be hard-pressed to prove it. You'd also be hard-pressed to disprove it as the absence of light means well... the absence of sight in general.
You can say, "Hey, how do you know it helps you see better?" and I can say, "I believe it does and I'm sure in my belief given my experience."
You could easily counter with, "I don't believe it does at all."
How would we prove it? >

You gotta finish the quote, dawg. Don’t do Carl like that. The full quote is:

“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.”

So no, it not enough to just say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. >

I was going to, but I recalled that the quote is inappropriately attributed to Carl. Apparently, it was a quote from before the 1900s so I didn't want to only attribute it to Carl. 
The problem with exceptional in this case is relativity. To a deist, it's an exceptional claim to state that a god doesn't exist. To an atheist, it's an exceptional claim to state that a god exists. Who is required to provide evidence? >


To a deist, it's an exceptional claim to state that a god doesn't exist. 

And? To an atheist it’s an exceptional claim to claim he does exist. 

Who is required to provide evidence?

The one making the affirmative claim…
If you tell me dreamcatchers work, and I dispute that, then it’s 100% on you, the one making the affirmative claim, to prove it. >

The proof that a deist brings up wouldn't stand up to the proof requirements an atheist needs.
We all know what a deist would bring up-
"The bible is proof", "Jesus Christ the person was proven to exist", etc.
To say that these are not proofs would once again go back to, what can the atheist do/say to disprove these as proofs to the deist. We'd see it go back and forth as we've all seen time and time again.
"The bible is written by man" - "Men that were divinely inspired"
"There's no records of Jesus being resurrected" - "There was no body in the tomb later"
The circle spirals on and on. That's one of the reasons why there's no point in the religion debate. >


The proof that a deist brings up wouldn't stand up to the proof requirements an atheist needs.

Because the diest thinks that feeling like something is true is valid. Which it is not. 

what can the atheist do/say to disprove these as proofs to the deist.

You’re basically asking “how do you get an unreasonable person to see that they’re being unreasonable?” 

That's one of the reasons why there's no point in the religion debate.

Because people commit the logical fallacy of “feels true to me” without realizing what they’re doing. The religious debate is never settled because religious people don’t understand the cognitive dissonance they’ve been doing their entire lives. >

I would agree that atheism is correct if the lack of something can be proven, but it genuinely can't.
The reason why the religion debate is never settled is that neither side has proof. By your words, it sounds like you already have a stance. That stance cannot be moved without proof. Deists also have a stance. That stance also cannot be moved without proof.
Do you see the issue here? Either side needs proof to move to the other side, but proof inherently cannot exist making the religion question a personal one instead of a debatable one. >


The reason why the religion debate is never settled is that neither side has proof.

I don’t have to prove a negative. 

That stance also cannot be moved without proof.

You’re doing it too now. How did they GET that stance without any proof?

Do you see the issue here?

Yes. That you are not recognizing lapses in logic. >

The burden of proof for them isn't the same as the burden of proof for you. We'll go back to the original issue. Saying "the bible says so" isn't proof to you. How did they get to that proof? I presume they read the bible and believed it.
You could argue, "well I could read Harry Potter and believe I'm a wizard." You can... and people have. That goes with most things that are entirely mental that we also accept.
IE. saying something like "I believe we are free to do what we want" vs "I believe we're programmed to do what our brains tell us" conflict with each other. You can't prove either and neither side can agree with the other.
Personal beliefs, regardless of what they are, aren't really things you can readily prove. You can make assumptions and beliefs about them, but you can't make proofs. This applies as much to religion as it does to really any thing.
You and that person are at an impasse because you don't accept their proof (being that they believe that the book is proof). Because you need proof, you want something else besides the sole piece of "proof" they have. Your baselines need to be the same to come to a debate, but deism and atheism baselines are fundamentally different.
Hence, debate is pointless. >


The burden of proof for them isn't the same as the burden of proof for you. 

What does that even mean?

Personal beliefs, regardless of what they are, aren't really things you can readily prove.

The issue (and where your examples conveniently fell short) is that belief has no bearing on the way things actually ARE. You can believe all you want that reality may be one way but your belief has no bearing on the way reality actually IS. 

You and that person are at an impasse because you don't accept their proof 

I don’t accept that they can believe things into existence. And I am objectively correct about that. 

Your baselines need to be the same to come to a debate

Correct. Diests need to understand the flaws in their logic, and they’re totally unjustified importance in the power of beliefs. >

The first mistake anyone could do is to rationalize the existence of God. I am believer myself, but proving the God is impossible and hence it is called faith.
If God exists and wanted everyone to know he exists, he could just make it happen. Until then, I, and every other religious person, can believe in God but can’t with certainty confirm its existence. >

How do you rationalize the 'If God exists and wanted everyone to know he exists, he could just make it happen." With the fact that the bible claims he very often made himself known in definitive ways, yet stopped doing it in modern times. If any of the miracles the Bible described happened in modern day science would be all over it and gladly declare that they had no other explanation, yet they no longer happen.
So I say that either the Bible lies, or God abandoned us. (Or more likely does not and never did exist) >

I meant it more with a thought that since he is omnipotent he could just make us know he exists.
I myself am not a very fan of Bible because even if it was a word of God, it went through many centuries of translating and rewriting for someone’s purposes so I take it with a grain of salt.
It is possible also that Bible lies, that God abandoned us or that God never did exist. I don’t deny that because I can’t for sure now if God exists.
On the other hand, if God does exist, trying to rationalize His decisions would be just stupid since we are talking about a being that is simply something humans can’t comprehend. >

There is also no available and conclusive evidence that a God doesn't exist. The existence of God does not qualify as a scientific theory because of this.
If God does exist, he obviously wants everyone to have an individual choice as to whether or not to belive in him and face the consequences that implies.
Science is undeniably useful but a relative newcomer in terms of societal development. There are older ways of determining truth than objective, materialist measurement. >

But for the theists who claim the existence of god, the burden of proof is on them to prove his existence, not me to disprove it. >

No, the burden is on the individual to decide whether they want God to exist and take on both the benefits and responsibilities that his existence implies. >

Nope, if you claim a god exists, it’s not my job to disprove you. >

It's no one's job to prove or disprove it as it would be an impossible job either way.
I guarantee that you believe in many things which cannot be proven to exist by material and objective means. That does not mean that such beliefs are meaningless. >

I’m not the one pushing my unfalsifiable beliefs into the realm of public policy.