Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Pat Mustard]

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'.

Oh, and to this point I say, people make extraordinary and ridiculous claims all the time, even ones which are obviously true. For example there are catholics who believe that a statue of Mary in Medjugorje sweats, even though it's been proven without doubt that it is a result of a very high water table in the area coupled with many small cracks in the statue created due to shoddy workmanship which allows ground water to be sucked up by capillary action until it exits the statue.

Oh and I also note that you place a much more stringent and sceptical evidential requirements on the gods of other religions. I wonder why that is? It couldn't simply be because you don't believe in them, because that would make you a massive hypocrite and an utter shit of a man, not worthy of anybody's respect.


Oh wait, yes it is, you utterly reprehensible and immoral person you!