How would you respond to this: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
First of all…what makes it extraordinary? “The term ‘extraordinary’ is subjective, and entirely dependent on your starting assumptions.”
Second, “insist that a reasonable and fair standard of evidence be applied—the same standards that are used in other areas.”
Third, don’t expect “that the skeptic will suddenly ‘see the light’ just because you mention things like early independent attestation (in the case of New Testament reliability) or the incredible design in nature (in the case of God’s existence). They already have ways of looking at these things through their ‘agnostic/atheist glasses’ that render these things unremarkable, or ‘not extraordinary enough’, in their eyes. Yet at the same time, they will embrace all manner of highly extraordinary claims (like chemical evolution or ‘abiogenesis’ and undirected evolution of life from single cells up to human beings) with very weak or no evidential backing.”
Lastly, keep challenging the skeptic. For example, they are using reason (hopefully) to argue against God, but “you may ask the skeptic to justify their use of reason in the first place…How can they trust their ability to reason, or their own sense perception” if they are simply chemicals that have evolved? Who’s brain chemicals are more evolved or more “True” in this conversation…and how do you know?
Read more here: https://creation.com/extraordinary-claims