The evidence that God has given me is sufficient for me to believe that he exists.I was talking about the process for evaluating the evidentiary value of a subjective, experience. A prophecy presumably prophesies an objective reality, which is a different matter.
Also, a prophecy has to be specific, and not fulfillable by multiple potential events, cant be contaminating the reports of the fulfillment of the prophecy, etc., etc.
Except you didn’t, as I recall, produce an actual logical distinction for which, after properly rejecting all but one explanation, we would be left with the necessarily true one. But we’d have to go back and re-litigate that one. Which is OK if you want to.
Strictly speaking, I definitely would consider it, I have considered it, but I have found it in sufficient.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Mere writings, without a secure chain of custody for the originals, when we have no physical objects, nor people we can interrogate, about what is arguably the most fantastic claim one could make, isn’t enough.
But what I believe in this regard is believed on the basis of an open and articulable epistemology, one that has had much success (as used by science). As I’ve said, I’m completely open to some other process or method, but every time I ask you for it, I never get back from what exactly what that process or method is. So it’s not my fault I’m stuck with science.
it’s insufficient evidence for accepting the claim, and it has no articulable process or method of checking, etc.
If it doesn't meet your measures of evidence is beside the point as your measures of evidence do not include the subjective nor provide an accurate measure of the supernatural.