On the nature of evidence.

[trmof]

I think you might be setting your standards too high.

Conversely, I think you're setting yours too low.

As someone who I presume lives an ordinary life without major worldwide repercussions, it might be unreasonable to ask God for something so major that he has to make the laws of physics jump through hoops. He has to take into account the butterfly effect this would have on everything in your immediate vicinity and beyond.

I'm pretty sure a God that can plan for the intricacies involved in the evolution of intelligent life by means of physical laws and then intercede to violate them can also ensure that the butterfly effect remains exactly as it would given the absence of a miracle.

In my experience God is much more likely to communicate with people through strange circumstances which speak to them personally, as these are much easier to engineer.

That's what I would expect, as an atheist too. The difference is what you identify as God, without sufficient reason, I identify as fanciful projection of the ego, substantiated by a multitude of observations.

I would suggest you ask humbly for a very simple sign of this kind, and don't immediately write it off as a coincidence when something unusual happens; but ask God to provide a larger, bolder sign to confirm the first. If he is an active personality as I believe, he will see fit to give you these signs and make them more and more obvious. However, if you DO receive these increasingly obvious signs and still refuse to acknowledge them as circumstantial evidence, then God will eventually stop trying.

I would suggest that you apply a little more critical thought to your analysis of causes and effects.

On that note, my point becomes: If God did in fact exist and the ways I've described were the only way he were willing to communicate with you at the moment for reasons he can't currently explain to you, then your standard of evidence would tie his hands in terms of reaching out and making contact with you.