Testimony: Are we being hypocritical?

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

[/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_Alexander_the_Great]Caught out again, lying for Christ
Caught out yet again, lying for Christ

You do realize that you're proving my point. All the information about Socrates comes from contemporaneous sources, such as the Platonic dialogues and local playwrights. Even if I was completely mistaken, I would simply be mistaken. Calling someone a liar for a simple error is not rational; but rather the type of hysterical responses one would expect from unhinged individuals.

With respect to the OP, the issue largely comes up with respect to NT reliability. The point generally made by believers is that skeptics have ruled out the supernatural in advance or at least raised the burden of proof to an unobtainable level. As such the very nature of the thing we are trying to prove serves as the reason given for not accepting evidence of it. It's a no win situation.

Well you can't both claim something is supernatural and think that the evidence required wouldn't be supernatural.

That doesn't even make sense. If Sodom was destroyed by brimstone raining down from the sky then it is possible to unearth a city with a layer of char. If the walls of Jercho collapsed then you can possibly find the ruins of a breached city wall. I guess, skeptics will never be satisfied even if they find a sign saying "Welcome to Sodom: Home of World Famous Fudge."

It's also disingenuous.

Skeptics constantly demand physical evidence. That means that the believer, in order to satisfy that high bar, must present something that could not possibly exist. A supernatural natural object.

Of course the kind of personal experiences theists speak of is not valid evidence. That's terrible evidence of anything.

In your opinion.