Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Harry Nevis]

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.

1. This is not knowledge of god, as nothing that is observed is only attributable to a god.
2. Nothing is revealed except that people believed.
3. Unsubstantiated stories.
4. Unfalsifiable hearsay.