Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Astonished]

Extraordinary evidence is first and foremost evidence that the extraordinary phenomenon exists at all and in what its nature lies.  If you insist on defining 'God' as that which is beyond nature, then you have defined it right out of our known universe.  You've as much as said it does not exist in any way already known..

To show that an ordinary, garden variety common-as-dirt event occurred it is relevant at least to show that the opportunity was there.  But when the phenomenon in question is of the absolutely mysterious variety, the opportunity is indeterminable.  No one knows under what conditions it could be induced.  

With the ordinary, you can argue that X is precisely the sort of occurrence one might expect for a well-known phenomenon.  But with the deeply mysterious, no one knows what is or isn't likely.  No one knows under what condition the mysterious phenomenon would be expected to occur.

Extraordinary evidence would be that which grounds the extraordinary phenomenon in the world as we know it.  By defining it as outside the known, you raise the bar for what would constitute acceptable evidence by first and foremost establishing what it is and by what it is known.

Not to mention, how one would determine the cause of said phenomenon. He probably wouldn't give half a shit if the extraordinary thing didn't let him be all like,