Let's ignore the personal remarks and stick to the actual discussion.
You said your standard is "physical evidence, logical evidence, or credible first-hand eyewitness testimony."
That's a much better place to start.
My question is this:
Do you apply that standard consistently to **all** unique events in ancient history?
For example, if multiple first-century witnesses consistently claimed they saw an event, would you ever consider that sufficient historical evidence, even if the event couldn't be repeated scientifically?
If your answer is "no," then you've adopted a standard that rules out **every** unique ancient event before you even examine the evidence.
If your answer is "yes," then the discussion becomes whether the resurrection accounts meet that historical standard—not whether miracles are impossible by definition.
Also, regarding God "showing up" on command: Christianity has never taught that God is obligated to perform signs whenever someone demands them. In fact, the Gospels record occasions where Jesus refused to perform signs simply because people demanded one. So your expectation isn't something Christianity itself promises.
Finally, you keep saying I haven't questioned my beliefs. I have. That's precisely why I've spent time studying the historical evidence, manuscript evidence, philosophy, and arguments on both sides. You're free to conclude that I'm wrong, but it's not accurate to say I haven't examined the question.
Standard of proof is identical, the weight and reliability assigned to each type of evidence differ significantly:
Physical Evidence: Generally considered objective and tangible, providing concrete proof that can be measured or analyzed (e.g., DNA, fingerprints, weapons). It is less susceptible to subjective bias or memory lapses.
Personal Testimony: Is subjective and human-dependent, relying on the witness's credibility, perception, and memory. It is more vulnerable to challenges such as bias, inconsistency, or the hearsay rule, which excludes statements made outside of court unless an exception applies.
Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidence that are beyond reasonable doubt.
For example if someone is accused of murder and facing life in prison that evidence must be rock solid vs if someone is accused of stealing bubble gum.
If you claim jesus was an ordinary guy who spiritually resurrected my requirement for proof will be proportional to the claim.
If you claim jesus was "god" performed magic/miracles and physicaly resurrected he said/she said are no longer good enough by themselves. Testimony (non extraordinary evidence) will be considered as valid evidence but its value/weight isn't the same as physical/tangible proof.