Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[SteveII]

[Sorry, Steve, but I've butchered what I had quoted from you here and I'm not sure how to fix it.]

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.  [1] 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.[2]

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.[3]

1. "Beyond nature" in no way means "right out of our known universe". There is no reason to think that if the supernatural exists it could exist all around us or come and go as it pleases. 
2. You are simply drawing the distinction between a naturally-caused event and a supernaturally-caused event. Prior knowledge in the natural world of when/where/how a supernatural cause is by definition not possible.
3. But you are just defining the evidence as extraordinary by what if is describing--not through any properties of it's own. The evidence is just evidence that anyone can identify with the five senses and apply some common sense to. The example I used earlier about the man walking away. That very plain act was all you get. This is why I am asserting that "extraordinary claims DO NOT REQUIRE extraordinary evidence". Demands of more/better quality are unfounded.