RE: Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?
July 27, 2017 at 9:46 am
(This post was last modified: July 27, 2017 at 9:49 am by Harry Nevis.)
(July 27, 2017 at 9:27 am)SteveII Wrote:(July 27, 2017 at 8:17 am)Harry Nevis Wrote: "have been compelling to a significant amount of people". It all comes down to this, doesn't it? Oh, and "evidence that someone believed it to be true" is the same as "it's true", as long as you agree with it. You have no evidence that only points to your god, but a pile of evidence that has so many other explanations other than the one you chose makes your choice no more valid.
Go ahead--explain away all the points I made above. Make sure you don't leave any of them out--not explaining even one will knock your house of cards down in an instant.
Until you do, I have a unaddressed body of evidence that BILLIONS (in case you were not clear on the size of the jury) of people have considered and determined that it meets the standard of proof they chose for themselves--whether that be "beyond reasonable doubt", "clear and convincing evidence", "preponderance of the evidence", "substantial evidence", or "some evidence".
Right. How many are left after discounting the emotional need to believe, indoctrination, by force, didn't really look at the evidence, but everyone else around me says they believe, just claim to believe to have their prejudices and bigotry supported, etc.? I would say precious few start believing after examining the evidence, because it just don't lead to anywhere. They decide they like the idea first, then go looking for support to prove themselves right, making the bar for the so-called evidence pretty low. Or does the fact that more BILLIONS do NOT accept that the evidence meets their standard of proof just as convincing that it's NOT true?
(July 27, 2017 at 9:27 am)SteveII Wrote: Okay, so your position is extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence--just ordinary evidence of the components of the claim? Do you think that the NT fails to provide some level of ordinary evidence (even if you think that it does not meet your personal level of proof you require)?
In case you are saying that the supernatural has to be proven before considering the evidence of the NT claims, then that's just question begging.
Do you even know what begging the question means, or do you have your own christian definition, just like "evidence", "fact" and "know"?
"The last superstition of the human mind is the superstition that religion in itself is a good thing." - Samuel Porter Putnam
