Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Minimalist]

4. What else besides eyewitness testimony do we have for any series of historical events?

But you don't have eyewitness testimony.... which is notoriously unreliable anyway.  Even your fucking gospels make no such claim.

[Simon Moon]

This is akin to arguing that taxation is a natural part of reality, and that Federal law only "catalogs" it. It's an idiotic argument. [1] Can you show me one other contemporaneous record aside from the Bible which asserts that JC was divine? [2] That's right, you cannot.

And that means that semantics aside, the Bible is the claim. And that means that pointing to it as evidence that the claims it "catalogs" is circular reasoning. [3]

I've already got every reason to think poorly of viewpoint -- you consider eyewitness testimony accurate when every first-year psychology student knows otherwise (and has been shown as much by a staged event arranged by the professor.) [4] The only thing this post does is convince me even more that you and your views merit little if any attention.

1. That isn't even close to being analogous. The tax code does not catalog events that happened--it establishes guidelines for classifying and taxing transactions. 

2. Since the 'Bible' is a collection of 66 books written by 40 some authors over 1500 years, your reasoning goes flying out the window. You see, there is no justification you can use to treat the Bible or the NT as one thing. It wasn't and never will be one thing. Let me re-write your sentence so that it reflects the reality of the situation:

"Can you show me one other contemporaneous record aside from the Bible  Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation which asserts that JC was divine?"

To which I would say that scholars believe there was also Q and possibly M and L. In addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and 1 Clement and more the 12 others that did not make the "canon cut" that were still written in the lifetime of witnesses (before 100AD). 

3. This 'the Bible is the claim' stuff has got to stop. It makes anyone who brings it up sound stupid. To be circular reasoning, the details of the claim would have to be found only in one place and therefore inseparable from one document. We have plenty of independent documents plus the fact that the churches believed the claim prior to the gospels being written. 

4. What else besides eyewitness testimony do we have for any series of historical events? Admit it, your problem isn't with eyewitness, its the content of the claim. And if that's the case, you are the one engaged in question begging/circular reasoning: the NT can't be true because miracles don't happen.

Sorry, but there is no amount of textual material that can ever be good evidence for miracle, supernatural, god claims.

And of course, you are guilty of special pleading by not allowing for the same kind of evidence for other religions texts, besides your own.

I can interview living people, some that have written books, that will attest to their alien abduction experiences. Most of them are honestly and sincerely reporting what they believe is the truth.

Should I believe them? Do you?

I am not saying they are lying, they are probably misinterpreting some other experience.

Now, why when you move other supernatural stories 2000 years into the pre-scientific past, written decades or more after the alleged experiences, by non eyewitnesses, do supernatural stories become more credible?

[Minimalist]

Should I believe them? Do you?

I guess he believes this too?

[4.81] In the months during which Vespasian was waiting at Alexandria for the periodical return of the summer gales and settled weather at sea, many wonders occurred which seemed to point him out as the object of the favour of heaven and of the partiality of the Gods. One of the common people of Alexandria, well known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor's knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity. This he did by the advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many superstitions, worships more than any other divinity. He begged Vespasian that he would deign to moisten his cheeks and eye-balls with his spittle. Another with a diseased hand, at the counsel of the same God, prayed that the limb might feet the print of a Caesar's foot. At first Vespasian ridiculed and repulsed them. They persisted; and he, though on the one hand he feared the scandal of a fruitless attempt, yet, on the other, was induced by the entreaties of the men and by the language of his flatterers to hope for success. At last he ordered that the opinion of physicians should be taken, as to whether such blindness and infirmity were within the reach of human skill. They discussed the matter from different points of view. "In the one case," they said, "the faculty of sight was not wholly destroyed, and might return, if the obstacies were removed; in the other case, the limb, which had fallen into a diseased condition, might be restored, if a healing influence were applied; such, perhaps, might be the pleasure of the Gods, and the Emperor might be chosen to be the minister of the divine will; at any rate, all the glory of a successful remedy would be Caesar's, while the ridicule of failure would fall on the sufferers." And so Vespasian, supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required. The hand was instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/tacitu...ory04.html

And look - there were fucking eyewitnesses!  But I imagine we will get a shitload of special pleading even though its written in an old book which seems to be the extent of Steve's requirement to believe anything.

[JackRussell]

I like old books too. I just prefer Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason'.

[KevinM1]

It should be noted that the location of the claim - a book, in letters, in oral tradition - does nothing to negate circular reasoning if the only reason why the claim is purported as being truthful is because the claim says so.

The Bible is the claim. That other documents and people believed/expressed the same claim before the Bible's creation doesn't mean they're different claims, and says nothing about the truth of them.

[JackRussell]

Should I believe them? Do you?

I guess he believes this too?

[4.81] In the months during which Vespasian was waiting at Alexandria for the periodical return of the summer gales and settled weather at sea, many wonders occurred which seemed to point him out as the object of the favour of heaven and of the partiality of the Gods. One of the common people of Alexandria, well known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor's knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity. This he did by the advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many superstitions, worships more than any other divinity. He begged Vespasian that he would deign to moisten his cheeks and eye-balls with his spittle. Another with a diseased hand, at the counsel of the same God, prayed that the limb might feet the print of a Caesar's foot. At first Vespasian ridiculed and repulsed them. They persisted; and he, though on the one hand he feared the scandal of a fruitless attempt, yet, on the other, was induced by the entreaties of the men and by the language of his flatterers to hope for success. At last he ordered that the opinion of physicians should be taken, as to whether such blindness and infirmity were within the reach of human skill. They discussed the matter from different points of view. "In the one case," they said, "the faculty of sight was not wholly destroyed, and might return, if the obstacies were removed; in the other case, the limb, which had fallen into a diseased condition, might be restored, if a healing influence were applied; such, perhaps, might be the pleasure of the Gods, and the Emperor might be chosen to be the minister of the divine will; at any rate, all the glory of a successful remedy would be Caesar's, while the ridicule of failure would fall on the sufferers." And so Vespasian, supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required. The hand was instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/tacitu...ory04.html

And look - there were fucking eyewitnesses!  But I imagine we will get a shitload of special pleading even though its written in an old book which seems to be the extent of Steve's requirement to believe anything.

And I have many coins of Vespasian, Titus and Domitian in my collection. I have absolute proof of the trinity.

[SteveII]

Hey Steve.... so sorry for writing stuff that makes you write other stuff that gets everyone to jump on you... it's a gift I have

Not a problem. I'm fine-tuning my arguments. The more practice the better. Watch...even this last sentence will get a few replies. I could probably just say "black" and I would get at least 3-4 replies of "white". 

As it applies to my NT arguments, evidence that we would accept for any historical event should be accepted for the events that the gospels describe (applying the probability theory I mentioned above). A demand for better or more (what I take "extraordinary" in the title of this thread to mean) evidence has no power that can render what we do have as 'not evidence'. This last sentence is core to my argument. Therefore the phrase "Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence" is false. 

Yes.... but people here are disagreeing with you because you mangle the ordinary claim that a historical Jesus existed - clearly evidenced by the existence of the gospels and the legions of followers that his presence originated, as you've been telling us all along - with the extraordinary claim that Jesus was as described in those gospels.... that Jesus was the son of God.... that this God exists in the first place. And these claims must be evidenced in reverse order:
1. God exists.... don't forget to define what this "god" thing is... and teach everyone how mankind ever came to possess that information... as far as I can tell, there is no available mechanism for it, so you will have to also supply the mechanism by which we acquired that information.
2. Jesus is the son of God. So says Jesus in the story, huh? Quite self-serving...
3. Jesus was as described in the gospels.

I accept that there are varying levels of claims about Jesus. I have never been shy about arguing for the most extraordinary version. While I do not think is the only evidence, why wouldn't Jesus' life as described in the gospels be evidence for all three? He didn't just claim to be God, he backed it up with miracles, wisdom in everyday living, knowledge of God, knowledge of Man's condition, explained the need to atonement, provided that atonement, and then rose again. 

Regarding 1 specifically, Romans 1:19-21 applies. 

19For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and darkened in their foolish hearts.…

This means information that can be gleaned from Natural Theology of which we can derive quite a few formal arguments from and from those, we can infer a decent amount of information about God (timeless, powerful, omniscient, a personal orderly mind, etc.).

---

1. That isn't even close to being analogous. The tax code does not catalog events that happened--it establishes guidelines for classifying and taxing transactions. 

2. Since the 'Bible' is a collection of 66 books written by 40 some authors over 1500 years, your reasoning goes flying out the window. You see, there is no justification you can use to treat the Bible or the NT as one thing. It wasn't and never will be one thing. Let me re-write your sentence so that it reflects the reality of the situation:

"Can you show me one other contemporaneous record aside from the Bible  Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation which asserts that JC was divine?"

To which I would say that scholars believe there was also Q and possibly M and L. In addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and 1 Clement and more the 12 others that did not make the "canon cut" that were still written in the lifetime of witnesses (before 100AD). 

3. This 'the Bible is the claim' stuff has got to stop. It makes anyone who brings it up sound stupid. To be circular reasoning, the details of the claim would have to be found only in one place and therefore inseparable from one document. We have plenty of independent documents plus the fact that the churches believed the claim prior to the gospels being written. 

4. What else besides eyewitness testimony do we have for any series of historical events? Admit it, your problem isn't with eyewitness, its the content of the claim. And if that's the case, you are the one engaged in question begging/circular reasoning: the NT can't be true because miracles don't happen.

Sorry, but there is no amount of textual material that can ever be good evidence for miracle, supernatural, god claims. [1]

And of course, you are guilty of special pleading by not allowing for the same kind of evidence for other religions texts, besides your own. [2]

I can interview living people, some that have written books, that will attest to their alien abduction experiences. Most of them are honestly and sincerely reporting what they believe is the truth. [3]

Should I believe them? Do you?

I am not saying they are lying, they are probably misinterpreting some other experience.  

Now, why when you move other supernatural stories 2000 years into the pre-scientific past, written decades or more after the alleged experiences, by non eyewitnesses, do supernatural stories become more credible? [4]

Welcome to the party Simon.

1. First, 'good' as it applies to standards of proof is subjective, so that sentence is your opinion. Second, what type of evidence for first century miracles, supernatural, God claims would be 'good' evidence? If this 'good' evidence is not possible, then you are just question begging: miracles can't happen so the NT can't be evidence of miracles. 

2. Not at all. Unlike all of the atheist who make the claim of "no evidence", I am willing to look at the evidence presented from other religions and tell you precisely why I don't find them compelling. Go ahead...present some evidence for another religion and I will tell you why we have apples and oranges and definitely not special pleading.

3. I'm sure they are. What we don't have is other people describing the same single event -- the abduction of one single person. All we have is self-reporting. Here is the real problem with this analogy: if Jesus had written his claims down, you would argue that it needed to be witnessed by others for us to believe!!

4. It is your claim they were not eyewitnesses! They claimed they were. Competing claims...I go with them.

[Minimalist]

I accept that there are varying levels of claims about Jesus.

Except the one that he is just a figment of some nutty jesus freak's imagination.

[Mister Agenda]

1. First, 'good' as it applies to standards of proof is subjective, so that sentence is your opinion. Second, what type of evidence for first century miracles, supernatural, God claims would be 'good' evidence? If this 'good' evidence is not possible, then you are just question begging: miracles can't happen so the NT can't be evidence of miracles. 

If miracles were real and uncommon enough to be remarkable, ancient texts without independent corroboration would still be claims of particular miracles, not evidence of particular miracles. They'd just be more plausible claims because we'd know miracles are possible. The Bayesian analysis would be a little different, the claim less improbable, but still not evidence of the truth of the claim.

The story of Archimedes destroying enemy ships attacking Syracuse with arrays of mirrors doesn't involve supernatural intervention and, while improbable, is not completely impossible under ideal conditions. But with only Lucian's account, one shouldn't consider the destruction of ships with an ancient heat ray anything but 'unconfirmed' at best. A possible alternative explanation is that mirrors were used to dazzle and blind people on the ships, and the story got exaggerated; or maybe one or more of the ships caught fire for other reasons, not that uncommon.

[Simon Moon]

Sorry, but there is no amount of textual material that can ever be good evidence for miracle, supernatural, god claims. [1]

And of course, you are guilty of special pleading by not allowing for the same kind of evidence for other religions texts, besides your own. [2]

I can interview living people, some that have written books, that will attest to their alien abduction experiences. Most of them are honestly and sincerely reporting what they believe is the truth. [3]

Should I believe them? Do you?

I am not saying they are lying, they are probably misinterpreting some other experience.  

Now, why when you move other supernatural stories 2000 years into the pre-scientific past, written decades or more after the alleged experiences, by non eyewitnesses, do supernatural stories become more credible? [4]

Welcome to the party Simon.

1. First, 'good' as it applies to standards of proof is subjective, so that sentence is your opinion. Second, what type of evidence for first century miracles, supernatural, God claims would be 'good' evidence? If this 'good' evidence is not possible, then you are just question begging: miracles can't happen so the NT can't be evidence of miracles. 

I have never claimed that miracles can't happen. Only that I have not been presented with the type of evidence that would convince me.

My claim is that texts, written by scientifically illiterate people, decades or more after the alleged events, by non eyewitnesses, is not good evidence. Anyone that considers themself a critical thinker but then lowers their bar for evidence for miracle claims to texts, is doing it wrong.

2. Not at all. Unlike all of the atheist who make the claim of "no evidence", I am willing to look at the evidence presented from other religions and tell you precisely why I don't find them compelling. Go ahead...present some evidence for another religion and I will tell you why we have apples and oranges and definitely not special pleading.

And of course, you will use your religious texts as the ruler, in order to make the judgement on whether they are or are not compelling. While, what you should actually be comparing them to is the "null hypothesis". The same ruler I compare ALL religious texts to.

3. I'm sure they are. What we don't have is other people describing the same single event -- the abduction of one single person. All we have is self-reporting. Here is the real problem with this analogy: if Jesus had written his claims down, you would argue that it needed to be witnessed by others for us to believe!!

Actually, this is not true. There are quite a few experiences with mass sightings and multiple abductions.

4. It is your claim they were not eyewitnesses! They claimed they were. Competing claims...I go with them.

Not my claim. The claim of the majority of Biblical scholars, including Christian scholars.