Uhh, no. But thank you for proving my point. You're making two mistakes: a mistake between proof and belief and a mistake between types of claims. I might bel

Uhh, no. But thank you for proving my point. You're making two mistakes: a mistake between proof and belief and a mistake between types of claims. I might believe you when you say it rained yesterday, but that certainly doesn't mean that you've done the work necessary to prove that it in fact did rain yesterday. To prove it, I'd need to see a video, examine the video for tampering, &c. Similarly, if you said "someone protected me from the rain by keeping a big umbrella floating over my head the whole day", I'd need to see a video, examine the video for tampering, &c. What do you know: the same evidentiary proof for two similar claims. Notice how my second example uses a "smaller" thing than "god reached down" - the way you phrase it is entailing a whole bunch of metaphysical claims not entailed by the first claim. But two metaphysical claims can be examined using the tools available to us, and competing metaphysical claims would use similar evidentiary tools.