Logic vs Evidence

[DeistPaladin]

Can these things potentially contradict each other?

Purely logical conjecture without evidence to support it is the weakest form of "evidence" if it can even be counted as evidence at all.

It's a truism that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." This is in fact the rule we operate by in every other area of our discourse outside of our favorite pet beliefs, such as religion, but could also include conspiracy theories or other crackpottery.

The example I like to use is the difference between me saying "I had lunch with my wife yesterday," to "I had lunch with president Obama yesterday" and "I had lunch with my dead father yesterday and his cremated body has reconstituted itself and he's feeling much better now." What standard of evidence would be needed for each of these three claims?

This is why apologetics "pre-fails" or fails before we even examine the arguments. All they offer are hypotheticals, conjecture and thought experiments. "Blah blah blah therefore Jesus". Once all the reverberations from the noise the generate subsides, we are still left with not a shred of evidence to back their extraordinary claims. There's almost no need to even cross-examine their logic and point out the fallacies (although that can be fun) since the pitiful or non-existent evidence fails to meet the burden of proof established by the extraordinary nature of their claims.

There's a difference between making an argument and presenting evidence.