Isn't this the crux of the matter concerning what evidence can convince a skeptic that a god exists? You seem to think that there are multiple ways to view evidence. which is correct, but you also think that they are all equally valid, that there is no such thing that one is correct and the others not. That's false equivalency.
And that's the difference between the theists here and the atheists. The theists find the evidence offered inadequate to support theism. They simply have a different way of understanding what evidence implies and what it does not. You offer the writings of Baha'u'llah as evidence that he speaks for a god. You look at those words, that life and the history of the Baha'i religion, and see that a compelling indicator that a god must have had a hand in writing them. But the atheists look at those things and don't see anything that seems superhuman.
The Christians make the same claims for their religion. They tell us that scripture is proof of God, but experienced critical thinkers all agree that it is merely proof that somebody wrote those words, because they seem human. Likewise with the life of Jesus - "surely this was the Son of God." Uh, no. I was a the life of an itinerant religious fundamentalist who said nothing that human beings don't say. Remove the miracles, and this was an undistinguished life while it was being lived, later promoted into a religion by others after Jesus was gone.
None of this is convincing, which frustrates the theists, who see the atheist's bar for evidence too high, while the atheist sees the believer's bar set too low.
Also, I don't accept the idea that there are two different criteria for truth, and one for what we can experience and one for the kinds of things that people believe by faith. The claims that you can't use science, and don't expect evidence is really telling me that what is believed if probably false, and even if was a correct guess, that's all it was. You call it false equivalence t have a single standard, I call it special pleading to have a double standard for these.
But you are correct that for as long as the skeptics are going to use the same criteria for truth in all areas where truth claims are made, you cannot reach them by asking them to relax their standards, or by calling it the logical fallacy of false equivalence when they won't.
***********
Here's something I found a few years ago, and have modified a bit since. If you'd like to see the original video, try this
If you'd rather read a transcript of that video, try this:
The Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists - Daylight Atheism (patheos.com)
Frankly, most of what is called convincing here wouldn't convince me. I offer this list because everything offered in this thread as evidence of a god fits in the unconvincing category. That's apparent by the fact that you have convinced no atheist to agree with you.
Most of the following falls below my bar for convincing evidence of a god or a true religion, since most of it could be accomplished by advanced alien species (as Clarke said, any sufficiently advanced technology will appear to be magic). I wouldn't separate conclusive and highly suggestive evidence, and I might take out the word highly, leaving just two categories: suggestive and unconvincing.
Look at where the evidence you and the other theists here offer falls on this scale. You might put your religion's writings in number [6], since they convinced you to believe, but I don't see anything in those words that a man or men couldn't have written unaided:
THINGS THAT WOULD CONVINCE AN ATHEIST THAT A PARTICULAR RELIGION IS THE TRUE RELIGION.
CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE
[1] Any direct, irrefutable manifestation of the divine, such as being spoken to by the deity in the presence of multiple, reliable witnesses
[2] Bona fide miraculous occurrences, especially if brought about through prayer.
If glowing auras of holy light sometimes appeared around believers to protect them from harm, or atheists and only atheists were regularly struck by lightning, or only patients prayed for by members of a specific religion in a repeatable, placebo-controlled, prospective, double blinded study recovered better
[3] High quality prophecy fulfilled.
Criteria for a true prophecy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_prophecies#Criteria_for_a_true_prophecy
For a statement to be Biblical foreknowledge, it must fit all of the five following criteria:
1.
It must be accurate. A statement
cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus fore
knowledge) excludes inaccurate statements. TLDR: It's true.
2.
It must be in the Bible. A statement
cannot be
Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical foreknowledge definitionally can only come from the Bible itself, rather than modern reinterpretations of the text. TLDR: It's in plain words in the Bible.
3.
It must be precise and unambiguous. A statement
cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if meaningless philosophical musings or multiple possible ideas could fulfill the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional rather than accidental. TLDR: Vague "predictions" don't count.
4.
It must be improbable. A statement
cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because fore
knowledge requires a person to actually
know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows
anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence. TLDR: Lucky guesses don't count.
5.
It must have been unknown. A statement
cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because
foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it. Ideas of the time don't count
HIGHLY SUGGESTIVE EVIDENCE
[4] High quality scientific knowledge in holy books that was not available at the time.
The knowledge must be in detail and be about something counterintuitive like relativity or quantum mechanics, not merely mentioning in the broadest strokes of atoms, heliocentrism or evolution:" My disciples, I say unto thee that energy is mass times the speed of light multiplied unto itself." Of course, this could have come from a prior alien visitation.
[5] Aliens who believe the exact same religion
[Hidingfromyou offered this: "Number [5] is problematic and leads to possible deception by aliens who want your resources. If I were a conquering band of aliens with very limited tech, I'd pretend to engage in the major religions of the planet I was about quash." I thought that she was right about invading aliens, but not aliens that we found and visited. If we found them, and I were certain that they had had Christian bibles for centuries, I'd be convinced.]
[6] A genuinely flawless and consistent holy book. From Ingersoll: "It should be a book that no man -- no number of men -- could produce."
[7] A religion without internal disputes of factions
[8] A religion whose followers have never committed or taken part in atrocities
NOT CONVINCING
[9] Pseudo-miracles such as alleged miracle cures, speaking in tongues or other, or seeing the deity in a piece of toast.
[10] Any subjective experience such as people's conversion stories, reports of near-death experiences, or reports of messages from the deity
[11] Pseudo-science such as "intelligent design" and creationism
[12] Bible Code or similar numerological feats
[13] Citing scripture authoritatively
