Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[RoadRunner79]

Don’t you use evidence to verify a story?  If you have good and sufficient evidence, then would that make you the unreasonable one to deny it.

Yes we use evidence to verify stories, but what if all we have is the story and no way to verify it.
If we have good and sufficient evidence, then that is all we need to justify belief.

Do we have any evidence ?

No, we don't. Not one bit.

All we have is a collection of stories that we can't verify, from people who may or may not have even existed, because we can't even verify if they are fictional characters or if they actually lived.
The stories in my hypothetical book are from supposed family members and friends of people we can't confirm even existed in the 14th century.

When you have no evidence and testimony that you can't verify, about a procedure that is extraordinary in nature, like regrowing an arm or leg, you should not believe the story.

Belief is only granted when evidence can be presented that can verify the truth of the claim. You must be able to demonstrate that the evidence is factual and true.

It seems that you have a couple of double standards here, which I don't think that you can justify.    First is the continual reference to "extraordinary" things, which you appear imply some vague extra standard for.   I don't think that you can justify this, and in my experience people usually cannot explain or define what the standards and epistemology which is the basis for this.  It a catchy saying, which sounds good, but has no foundation for acquiring knowledge.  I would say, that you just need good and sufficient evidence, to make evident what is being claimed.  The second one, is that you keep referencing the time in the past that this occurred.  If the claim was made in the present, would you track down, and gain this information.   My guess is that you probably wouldn't have to meet a scientist or the people making the claim.   I don't think that it is reasonable for them to have to meet everyone who is going to believe the claim

I can agree, that you need multiple independent corroboration, of evidence, in order to rule out mistakes or fraud. And different parts of evidence can be verification for each other. There may be evidence against to consider as well.  And I think that it makes a difference if the claim was public, or happened somewhere, where even the people of the time, could not verify. 

When you say things, like you have to verify that they existed, it makes me question what exactly you mean by that?   Are you getting back to having to see something for yourself, in order to believe it?   Do you have to connect them to Kevin Bacon in six steps or less?   It would seem that your requirements would make most of history relatively unknowable.   I don't see that these double standards are justified epistemically, or that they are used normally by you or anyone else.   If your standards can be used to reasonably deny that Sweden exists, then I am suspect, that it is little more than selective hyper-skepticism.

edit:   Once again, you seem to be getting to testimony is not evidence, which gives knowledge and makes evident what is true.

---

To test your methodologies and reasoning, it's not just about those things that you want to deny.  You also test it against those things that you know to be true, things that you believe are true.  What are the consequences if this epistemology is followed out on them.  How small does your reasonable knowledge of the world get, if you follow these practices?  Is your epistemology open to evidence for new ideas, or does it just re-enforce your bias's and worldview.