The Reasons to Believe in Yahweh

[median]

That's a common misunderstanding of the extraordinary evidence concept. In this case:

1. The extraordinary claim is that the person is speaking for god
2. The extraordinary evidence is a miracle
3. The text is the ordinary means of perceiving the extraordinary evidence

Many people do as you do and confuse 2&3 for 1&2. Doing that excludes the possibility of extraordinary evidence by definition. By what extraordinary means do you think you can perceive a miracle? Seeing it? Sight is our most ordinary means of obtaining information.

In gJohn, Jesus invoked the principal, saying that people should believe him on the merits of what he was saying, but if not, then for the sake of the miracles he performed.

Muhammed said people should believe him on the merits of what he was saying, but when challenged to produce a miraculous sign, admitted he could not do so.

You can reject Jesus' miracles based on 3 above, i.e. you do not find the ordinary evidence compelling. However, note that this question is asked of theists, who do not rule out the miraculous as atheists do. It's a common and annoying practice on this forum for one atheist to ask a question from a theist perspective, then other atheists ignore that fact. I mean, yeah, we get it, you don;t believe this stuff happened, but if you're going to ask us about the details, we're going to answer from our perspective. /rant

Your "perspective" (which is really your ASSUMPTION) is exactly what is in question. So just repeating what your bible says (and trying to call it "evidence") is no more evidence than a person claiming they were abducted by aliens.

Second, regarding #2, the "extraordinary evidence" is NOT a "miracle" - because you have YET to demonstrate such a thing actually occurs. All you have pointed to (just like the other religions) are uncommon/unexplained phenomena (i.e. - Argument from Ignorance). You haven't demonstrated a miracle. So you cannot call "miracles" as synonymous with extraordinary evidence.

Third, "the text" is NOT the ordinary means of "perceiving the extraordinary evidence". The ordinary means of presenting extraordinary evidence is DEMONSTRATION (just like all other extraordinary claims in the world - such as "I can fly!").

Incorrect. They fit the first definition. Most people take on the beliefs they were raised with, but some switch based on such texts, so they are by definition evidence. They're just not conclusive evidence.

Actually we have faith because the miracles, even if accepted, are not full proof of the claims they support. They're necessary, but not adequate.

NO, they do NOT fit the definition. Just because someone accepts what an ancient book says (i.e. hear-say) does not (in any way) make such texts "evidence", anymore than space alien books are evidence. You need far more than this to actually have evidence and you have an extremely low standard of evidence. This is why you want to smuggle in your bible while kicking out the rest.

Second, your "faith" indicates (precisely) a point I made earlier. Faith is not a pathway to truth. It is a pathway to gullibility and credulity. You are "having faith" in hear-say. And you are in direct contradiction with your own religious texts (Mark 16), which clearly indicate that you WILL be DEMONSTRATING the supernatural ("greater things than these") if you believe.

Where is your moved mountain? Where is your verbal 'killing' of an olive tree? Where is your drinking poison and not getting sick? Where is your raising the dead? Where is your healing an amputee, born blind, or down-syndrome (no medical care)?

Making excuses/rationalizing why you are unable to do these things (consistently) doesn't help your case. It just puts you in the same category as all the other superstitious folk who make claims to the supernatural and can't demonstrate them.