On the nature of evidence.

[trmof]

You have explicitly discounted any form of evidence less impressive than God performing an Old Testament miracle on your behalf. If that's your standard, own it.

It's not my job to define your conception of God. I only assumed that the Old Testament deity is close enough to the one you're proposing we can discover through self-affirmation (in other words, selective attention to "signs" we interpret as evidence due to our prior acceptance of such a pathetic standard).

But doing so would prevent any supernatural being from making contact with you through any evidence which doesn't meet this standard. If that's your standard, fine, but you are objectively discounted certain forms of evidence. Whether or not that is wise is your own decision to make. I'm simply stating the proposition.

Exactly. Personal testimonies of faeries, demons, ghosts, aliens, and Big Foot also fail to meet my standard--presumably you also believe in those granted your weak qualification for evidence. If you want to posit the wisdom of such a strategy that struggles to properly determine the validity of the above propositions, that is, truth from error, reality from illusion, then I'll assume you know next to nothing about the last five centuries, or the dark ages that preceded them.

The reality of those or any other propositions has no bearing on whether any other proposition is true, regardless of it's nature. If you choose to act as if they do, you are making an intuitive inference which is in itself non falsifiable. If you choose to treat certain kinds of inferences as more logically valid than others, feel free. It should not surprise you that other people find your intuition lacking, just as you find theirs lacking.