First off, it is a fundamental observation that ones reasoning and conclusions about the world depend on ones prior knowledge, and i believe i wrote as much in my last post. For instance when you write:
First, we might similarly argue about whether or not Sulla exists. If I do not exist, then I will never do a headstand outside your front door while singing "We Built This City (on Rock and Roll)."
Then it is very true the argument you give is similar to mine, sound and provide practically no evidence towards your nonexistence for the reason you note: The chance of you doing headstands and singing rock n roll in front of my door --no matter if you exist or not-- is practically zero in either case. What this tell us is that if i want to examine if you exist or not, the proper experiment to perform is not to just look outside my front door, a pretty obvious conclusion really.
Thus in order to examine the strength of the evidence, we need to examine at least roughly how likely we believe it is for god (I assume we are talking about the christian God and our salvation to some extend depend on our acceptence of his existence?) to give unmistakeable signs of his existence. That is a long and difficult discussion and not one i think is terribly interesting.. personally i believe existence of certain forms of evil is a stronger argument against the christian god than hiddeness.
I will add this: If it was in my power to (trivially) prevent many types of evil, I can see no reason why i should do so. In fact i can give many, many cases where i would feel morally obligated to act, and where i would feel i was a terrible person if i did not act. I do not see why this should not be taken into account when posed the question if a perfectly loving god would tend to prevent trivially preventable evil or not.
On the other hand if i try to put myself in your shoes, i find it extremely unlikely i should get the idea to go over to some random strangers house, do a headstand and sing rock and roll. And even if i did get the idea into my head, considering there are billions of houses where i could potentially carry out the act, the chances i should do such a thing at one specific house is much much lower still.
Returning to the example of miracles:
we have to ask what an unmistakable sign would look like? How about parting a sea to facilitate the escape of his favorites? What about raising a man from the dead in such a way as to make him beyond death for all time? What about a miracle of the sun in 1917? What about miraculous healings? I know, you don't believe these things. But these are the signs you would say you need, and these are signs you reject; what frequency of miracles and signs would constitute proof to you?
I do not believe the above are unmistakeable signs of Gods existence because i do not believe the majority happened in the first place. To answer your question, personally i would accept a person being raised from the dead as evidence for Gods existence, assuming i could verify it really happened (strong indication of the person both being dead and then alive).
Or if God for instance rearranged some of the stars to spell out a message for us, or more mundanely, wrote his name on the moon, or if he talked to many different people telepatically at the same time -- there are many, many things i would consider clear evidence for Gods existence.
But the signs you gave are simply not of that strength, and i dont even think you find many of them very convincing. Take for instance miraculeous healing. If reports of healing, backed up by eye-witness accounts, are sufficient evidence, what about the various gurus and healers who can present eye-witnesses testifying to them healing other people?
And what makes you think you deserve proof?
hmm that sound a lot like an admission. Well is there compelling evidence [proof] or not? If there is no compelling evidence, you can say i do not deserve proof. That may be right. But why should i accept a god for which there is no proof? If there is no proof for the right god, and no proof for all the thousands of wrong gods, well, i might be perfectly wlling to accept god, but chances are i am going to end up with the wrong one.
And to be frank, I doubt it would impress you a lot if i told you to accept Thor, and when you asked why, i said you dont deserve any proof.