Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[paulpablo]

Every claim requires equal amounts of evidence.

If I say I went to the shops then we already know shops exist, that I exist, if you know me you know I have legs and could walk to the shops.

That gives my claim a head start from a claim like Jesus can miraculously come back from the dead, walk on water and heal the sick.

In the context of the bible, Jesus isn't a doctor, a magician or someone lucky enough to have been declared dead and then come back to life like some people sort of do.
All of those claims are claims of supernatural miracles, he's being helped by god to do what a normal human couldn't,  which we have no hard evidence of ever happening to Jesus or anyone ever.

So both claims require an equal amount of evidence but my claim is not extraordinary because there's already evidence backing up my claim of it being possible to begin with.

I don't disagree. So what then is "extraordinary evidence" and how is demanding it justified?

I didn't demand or mention extraordinary evidence.

I said all claims require equal amounts of evidence.

What makes an extraordinary claim is that it has less evidence backing it up than a standard claim does to begin with.

A standard claim, such as I saw Alf today, I walked down the road, it rained.  

There's already evidence Alf exists (assuming there is), if you know me you'll know I have legs and can walk down a road, we know on this planet it can rain.

I might be lying about all these things but there's at least evidence of the possibility of these events.

If I say Zeus the god traveled faster than light through the halls of Valhalah, then the claim begins in a position of having less evidence backing it up.

Due to the fact we need evidence of Zeus, that anything can travel faster than light, and that valhalah exists.