Testimony: Are we being hypocritical?

[Whateverist]

My personal position on this particular subject is that if god is penetrating the natural world with physical events such as floods, Jesus, and miracles, etc., there should be some physical evidence left behind.

That's fair. That's what biblical archeology is for. For example, we have a pretty good idea of where the pool of Bethesda was. At the same time, we do not require any physical proof of Socrates or Alexander the Great.

Well you needn't require physical evidence for anything in the bible either.  We all set our own standards.  I'm sure I won't be the only one unconvinced of supernatural intervention on the basis of natural remnants or testimony.  Nothing but the thing itself will convince me otherwise.  Why try?  Surely the opinion of skeptically inclined people can't mean all that much to you once you've made up your mind.