God's God

[median]

"Again, I'll accept supernatural explanations if and only if the supernatural is conclusively demonstrated to exist. I do not believe in anything which is impossible to verify outside of my own experience because to do otherwise is intellectually dishonest."

This is can agree with on the condition that I am allowed to put trust in someone else who did the same work I would have done. For example, I know nothing of archeology. However, I can go read about it. I don't have to visit all those places to believe what I read. I just know it isn't ridiculous and matches everything else I know, so it's good for now.

Reading an archeologist (or few), who also believe(s) like you, isn't - in any way - sufficient to justify belief in the supernatural (this is why, elsewhere, we've said your standard of evidence is way too, hypocritically, low). Textual accounts of the miraculous, whether from yesterday, yesteryear, or 2000+ years ago are also not sufficient to establish that a violation of known physics occurred. Claimed supernatural events are extraordinary claims. They require MORE than just textual "I said so" hearsay accounts - not less (Read your bible! Mark 16, John 14, John 10). They are not sufficient to establish that ANY extraordinary phenomena occurred. Would you accept, "on faith", my personal 'testimony' (in written form) that I have a pet fire-breathing dragon? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Again, your standard of evidence is extremely low (and hypocritical because you want to smuggle in your presumed and interpreted religion, but push out the rest). You have a double standard problem, a spin problem, and a gullibility problem.