Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence! 

The fallacy lies in the subjective nature of the word extraordinary to the individual. One might fight the beauty of Mount Rushmore to be extraordinary, while another views it as an unimpressive tribute to a few dead presidents. 

If someone for instance thought it was an extraordinary claim that humans built the pyramids, they may apply a higher demand of proof to overcome their belief in an advanced alien civilization coming to aid ancient man, whom they believe could not possibly achieve what they deem an impossible structure for humanity to accomplish on their own. 

What about the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth? Don't the majority of dead people stay dead? Are we being asked to believe that out of all the people who remain in their grave we are just supposed to accept that the laws of nature were violated for the same of this one Man? 

If God exists however, does it seem extraordinary that the Creator of the laws of nature could violate those laws of nature if He desires? Belief in God is grounded in logical reasoning and if thus rational and so with the assumption of a God powerful enough to bring the universe into existence, it does not seem extraordinary then that the same God would have no problem bringing a dead man back to life. 

Supposing He did bring Jesus of Nazareth back to life from the dead, what kind of evidence do you suppose we should expect? 

Imagine a man dying in front of you, in a third world country in a culture that does not immediately dispose of the corpses for two days and by the end of the first day, the smell and signs of death are evident to everyone as they prepare for the ritual they have done a thousand times over, experts in knowing what death is. Two days in, as they prepare the final burial ritual he suddenly springs back to life before your eyes, to the amazement of you and everyone in the village as he tells an amazing tale of the afterlife. 

Now whether his tale is a result of electrical activity in his brain making sense of his experience from an unknown phenomena which science can not explain or his tale is true is debatable, but the evidence that would convince you of this extraordinary claim is simply not very extraordinary and in fact based on the ordinary evidence of information received by your senses and the confirmation of your fellow eye witnessness. 

What evidence would be left behind if such an event happened 2,000 years ago? Nothing more than some written accounts that happened to survive the passage of time, with perhaps some people mocking the claim… Which is precisely what we see in history for Jesus of Nazareth, evidence we would expect if a Man died in front of a group of people and appeared alive to that same group. 

So the extraordinary claim only would require ordinary evidence and thus the fallacy is shown, but I invite the skeptic to consider one final thought. 

Nothing always produces nothing and quantum fluctuations in a vacuum are defined as something, that is, the quantum vacuum is a thing. 

Nothing can simply be defined as “no thing” and thus you do not believe the claim the universe came from nothing iti be an extraordinary claim, but I on the other hand find such a claim extraordinary! 

A universe from nothing? I demand evidence that nothing can produce anything at all! 

All known experience shows us that something can not come from nothing and yet you are asking me in this one particular case to grant an exception to the universe, believing that at one point the normal laws of physics do not apply and universes can spring into existence without a cause? The Leibniz cosmological argument would be well studied for your potential objections. 

If you claim the Theist is unreasonable for believing the laws of nature were suspended in the case of Jesus of Nazareth, then you are equally unreasonable for believing that suspended laws of physics can bring about a universe, a pretty extraordinary claim that by your own shifting of the goal post, requires extraordinary evidence. 

The reality is much more simple. 

Claims simply require sufficient evidence and we have exactly what we should expect if a Man named Jesus, claiming to be God, died 2,000 years ago and rose from the dead. History screams with sufficient evidence, the historical reality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the Son of God.