How much of the Bible do you believe literally?

[Esquilax]

The "burden of proof" argument is more of a tactic than it is sound debate. The burden of proof is on both the person making the claim and the person who disagrees with the claim. This is foundational to debate/science/truth seeking. The claim that these are empirical questions that need to be settled by (empirical?) evidence is made by you. These may be empirical questions but they could be very well explained as supernatural events. My evidence is the written testimony of these events. If the truth is outside of your set of beliefs, to say it's not possible as truth is an argument from ignorance. The Laws of logic say that truth is justified independently of a person's beliefs.

The burden of proof is simply logical, since it cuts out the implication of what you're saying here, the little hidden "but only my religion," addendum. If we lowered our standards of evidence to the point that we would accept the evidence you've given, which is "it was written in a book," sans any kind of conformation to physical reality or evidence, then we would also be stuck believing the claims of every other religious text, many of them mutually exclusive and contradictory. That's the end result of the evidence requisites you're proposing; a bunch of nonsense.

The fact that you're willing to disregard all the others and only believe your own religion's claims shows that what you're really doing here is attempting to slip your special pleading under the door by attacking the very idea that you'd need to do more to demonstrate your claims than just point to the book that is the claim. It's sad.