Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

It seems that the word 'extraordinary' is highly subjective based on a person's knowledge or experience. As an extreme example, wouldn't everything be extraordinary to someone who knew nothing? So, what makes a claim extraordinary? Uncommon or rare things happen every day. What is the threshold from crossing from ordinary to extraordinary that triggers this supposed need for a special class of evidence? And what constitutes this special class of extraordinary evidence? Is is a quantity thing or a quality thing?

While we could apply this discussion to a wide variety of claims, my interest  in the question is does it apply to supernatural/NT claims and if so, how?

For the purpose of this discussion, I define a miracle as a supernatural causation of a physical event, happening in time to physical objects. It is not a suspension of the laws of nature--rather inserting a cause from outside nature. 

First point. Of course someone being supernaturally healed or rising from the dead is an improbable claim. However, the improbability of this event could be counter-balanced by examining the evidence and simply asking the question: what is the probability of this evidence being present had a miracle not occurred? As this probability number goes down, the probability of the event having a supernatural cause goes up. Notice that there is no requirement that the evidence be 'extraordinary'.

Another point is that if the atheist equates supernatural with extraordinary claims (citing a lack of evidence), this implies that ordinary claims are ones that have good evidence to support it. To follow that line of thinking through, what is the good evidence for atheism? In fact, since there is zero evidence for atheism, the presence of the NT evidence and the fact that most people in the world intuitively believes in the supernatural, isn't the atheist making the extraordinary claim? If you go with the BS that atheists make no claims, then I would make the more modest point that atheist's 'extraordinary' assessment of NT claims are unfounded.

Bayesian reasoning. You use it for literally everything but your religious beliefs (drops mic).

Quote:Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

Yes.

Next question.


( P.S. your claim of a magical sky-daddy is "extraordinary.")

Steve... rather than messing with the semantics of the word "extraordinary".... how about recognize the principle the aphorism is describing? i.e. Occam's razor.

There is no evidence that Santa Clause does not exist, yet to make the claim Santa Clause does not exist is not an extraordinary claim due to there being no evidence for the existence of Santa Clause. If there is no evidence for the existence of something, then it is perfectly reasonable to make the claim in regard to that something not existing.

Someone making the claim that Santa Clause does exist is making the extraordinary claim since there is no evidence to support the claim. If anyone is to properly believe or trust the extraordinary claim in reference to the existence of Santa Clause, then evidence must be provided that Santa Clause does indeed exist.

Simply having faith that Santa Clause exists is futile, for if there was any actual evidence for the existence of Santa Clause there would be no need for faith.

I can understand how this kind of logic confuses theists, but there it is.

Well Steve, do you believe in Unicorns, Bigfoot, Fairies, Loch Ness Monster, Ghosts, Aliens, Telekenisis,Breatharianism, 9/11 conspiracy, Kennedy Assassination, Moon landings, flat earth, chemtrails,illuminati, NWO, GM crops, anti-vax, YEC, NDEs, Scientology, AGW, Whahabis'm, Gay therapy, pre modern technological civilizations......The list goes on and on.

What level of evidence are you happy for for them?

Supernatural Christian stuff is on that level. And we have lots of historical texts fro that period that show they accepted many silly ideas, and that was in an age before modern science.

Quote:Supernatural Christian stuff is on that level.

Oh...bu....bu....bu....but  "jesus."

So much more believable that that 'allah' fucktard, eh?

(July 26, 2017 at 2:46 pm)SteveII Wrote: To follow that line of thinking through, what is the good evidence for atheism?

The fact that I have no belief in gods. (picks up second mic and drops that one, too)

Back when I was young and still a fundie, I once came extremely close to being in a bad car accident.  A truck was driving erratically a few vehicles behind mine.  I yanked my car to the right, into a parking space, just as the truck plowed into the vehicle behind me.  That car lurched forward and grazed my left rear bumper, and rear-ended the car in front of me.

I didn't make the conscious decision to pull the car over, but I was aware of noise and movement behind me.  I told my friend Kathy about it.  She was certain that an angel had spared me.  I was beginning to question during that time, and was uncomfortable with this.  I had no sense of any entity in the car except ME, and I wasn't going to claim there was.  But Kathy spread the story around the school.

THIS was an extraordinary claim.  The kind that needs evidence.  Had I been a few years younger I might have spread that story myself, even adding in that someone was in the car with me, my hands were being guided, or . . . who knows what.  I could have just made up the whole thing, and if I told it to a church group, not only would they have believed it, but they would have been offended by anyone who didn't believe it.  

This kind of extraordinary claim exists in all religious books, and proliferates in religious groups. 

Verifiable evidence, please.  Multiple witnesses, photo and video for a start.  Proof, or it didn't happen.  We need to eradicate the snake-oil salesmen from our society.

Yes.

/thread