Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[LadyForCamus]

And what's the believer's claim? First, there is a god, an entity that sits outside of the Universe and that is capable of creating Universes. My first knee jerk reaction is, of course, How would you know about that?! How did that information reach you? From where did that information come? How was it conveyed?
What sort of evidence do you expect to provide to answer these questions?
For all these knee jerk questions, the believer, at best, can tell me something along the lines of "divine inspiration". That's covering up a plot-hole with another hole. How do you know it's divine inspiration and not imagination? How can you distinguish the two?
Some will go further and point to the absence of knowledge concerning the origin of the Universe and then present their solution, as if it doesn't have to answer those first questions. Many, many, many alternatives can be presented for the origin of the Universe... How to discern the correct one?

Even without these questions answered - questions that pertain only to the information conveyed to you concerning this god - I can go to questions about the god itself. What is it? How does it generate Universes? Does it control the Universes it creates? Does it have companion gods? How can I interact with it?
None of these is satisfactorily answered by any religion.
The last question is asking about evidence... how can I gather my own evidence about this entity, without having to resort to you as a gateway? I don't even want you to give me evidence for that entity, I want to do it myself. Actually, I just want to know how to do it myself. Once that mechanism is understood and considered trustworthy, then I can accept your interactions with said deity.

Is this taken care of?
Of course not!!
Still, you then go on to claim stuff about a person who lived 2000 years ago. Centuries after my knee jerk reaction failed to be answered. Even without it being answered, tons of people became believers in some form or other of deity.
Having a population of believers, it's not a stretch to make them believe in something further about the same deity they already believe in... and thus evolve the religion.

First, I think if there is a God you can reasonably assume that at some point he would reveal himself. Not just say "hey, I'm here" but to give some sort of reason or purpose for the existence we are experiencing. I think this is done in a several ways in this specific order:

1. Natural Theology (theology or knowledge of God based on observed facts and experience apart from divine revelation)
2. Revealed Theology (theology based on what God has directly revealed about himself). The OT is full of interactions from which we can derive information.
3. Appearing in the Person of Christ. These are the events of the gospels--resulting in atonement for sin which resulted in the possibility of a one-on-one relationship with God. 
4. Personal Witness. The final revelation of God is within the context of the personal relationship promised in the NT. 

The four points build on the previous and become more focused. That is why the NT is a culmination of God's revelation--there is not more that needs to be done. No new body of information is needed to make sense of our origins, condition, obligations, purpose, and future. 

Second, I don't think that the doctrine of divine inspiration (God guiding the mind of the writer) is necessary here. All of the above could be accomplished without it. Using inspiration in an argument is just question begging. Rather it is a useful doctrine to discuss after the basics are already believed/established.

So...you're using your book to answer questions about your book, lol.  Got it.