You're splitting hairs, OP. If you want to be taken seriously, don't make a show out of the missing the point.

(October 26, 2015 at 12:02 am)ignoramus Wrote:

(October 25, 2015 at 11:41 pm)robvalue Wrote: Can you give an example of an extraordinary claim not related to your religion that you think we should now accept with this new standard, and on what evidence?

 Think Sagan was being a little theatrical to get his point across.
Is there a difference between evidence and extraordinary evidence?

I would think proof that Yahweh exists would constitute pretty extraordinary evidence.

If we are trying to reach an objective truth about our existence, we can't have people passing off extraordinary subjective truths as objective. Just because it was written by multiple people, and the historical timeline and dating is foggy, does not give you permission to adjust the claims to fit your own personal truth, nor should your version of it hold any weight on what is objectively true. If you want to make an extraordinary claim that your version out of every other bagillion other interpretations is true, it's going to require some extraordinary evidence. Extraordinary meaning what would be extraordinary for modern day science.

(October 25, 2015 at 11:21 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence:
The assertion that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence was made popular by Carl Sagan.  This seems sensical, after all, we are much more likely to believe a mundane story over a story which seems strange to us.  However; I find this to be both ill-defined and inconsistent.
 It is ill-defined, in that it is subjective.  What is extraordinary to one person, may not be that extraordinary to another.  It is dependent on the knowledge and experience of the subject.  It is also subjective in that it changes over time and culture.

You've answered your OP in your OP.

Ideas that would be extraordinary to our culture are ordinary to others.  Remember that the point of argumentation is to influence someone's world view, by making them take as fact something you want them to take as fact.  I take QM as a fact; Medieval Englanders, almost for sure, would not.  IN THEIR CULTURE, your QM claims would be extraordinary, and would require. . . wait for it. . . extraordinary evidence. Of course, that would mean presenting a series of experiments, and explanations, to get the culture up to speed.

(October 25, 2015 at 11:21 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence:

I will consider any evidence, but to date, there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of any god. There are, however, satisfactory theories that account for the universe and life contained within which do not include a god.

Extra-ordinary means simply that; it isn't accounted for by our ordinary, or customary, understanding of nature. For the extraordinary to be vindicated, to not be merely ordinary phenomena misunderstood, requires evidence that is extra-ordinary, i.e. it is qualitatively and quantitatively superior to alternative explanations. Evolution by natural selection or the general theory of relativity were once extraordinary claims. But they have been sufficiently demonstrated by extraordinary evidence. Now they're just ordinary facts taken within our ordinary understanding of nature. Had they not been supported by extraordinary evidence, they would be nothing but extraordinary claims - though probably long discarded as respectable hypotheses.

(October 26, 2015 at 12:48 am)Nestor Wrote: Extra-ordinary means simply that; it isn't accounted for by our ordinary, or customary, understanding of nature. For the extraordinary to be vindicated, to not be merely ordinary phenomena misunderstood, requires evidence that is extra-ordinary, i.e. it is qualitatively and quantitatively superior to alternative explanations. Evolution by natural selection or the general theory of relativity were once extraordinary claims. But they have been sufficiently demonstrated by extraordinary evidence. Now they're just ordinary facts taken within our ordinary understanding of nature. Had they not been supported by extraordinary evidence, they would be nothing but extraordinary claims - though probably long discarded as respectable hypotheses.

^ This ^

Additionally, anything claimed to be a miracle, would require extraordinary evidence, because a miracle is by definition an extraordinary event not accounted for by nature.

What is to be gained by "believing" things not properly supported by evidence? What practical use is it?

And how do we differentiate between competing ideas, all of which don't have very good evidence? Isn't it better to say we don't know and wait for proper evidence? What's the rush to jump to conclusions that aren't at all reliable?

OP completely ignores the fact that extraordinary claims become ordinary over time because -- get this -- they have been supported by extraordinary evidence.

ETA: Dammit, Shonuff and Jen got there first.

(October 26, 2015 at 2:11 am)robvalue Wrote: What is to be gained by "believing" things not properly supported by evidence? What does it achieve?

I believe it's often referred to as the "warm fuzzies".