Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[SteveII]

It provides ordinary evidence of an ordinary event.  That people tell stories.  It provides no evidence of an extraordinary event, the supernatural - by definition beyond the range of ordinary, as all evidence of the supernatural would inexorably be.

If someone wanted to demonstrate that psychic abilities existed, they would work to show a success rate beyond the ordinary range described by brute force of statistics.  Extraordinary predictive ability.
If someone wanted to demonstrate the healing power of a magical incantation, they would work to show a success rate beyond the ordinary rate of remission.  Extraordinary medical efficacy.
If someone wanted to show that a god walked the earth........................................."there's this book......see......"

There's no point in proponents of the supernatural complaining that the bar has been set too high...they're the ones who set it there by definitively proclaiming something to be extraordinary in the first place.  If they want to argue semantics, fine, but they're only arguing with themselves and their own silly ass claims.

Oh, I get it. Like if someone whats to demonstrate that the supernatural exists, maybe they would hang around for 3 years and perform series of miracles that only had supernatural explanations. How many miracles would that person have to do before a "success rate beyond the ordinary range described by brute force of statistics" was established?

The problem you just so kindly illustrated is that the evidence available to us is the same kind for your psychic and magician/healer illustration. However, through some process that remains unclear, we can set that aside and declare the need for extraordinary evidence. Please explain.

---

It's amazing to me that Steve thinks every single Christian has come to it after rigorous investigation of it.  Most people were born into it, with their entire support system having something to do with it.  Others convert when they're emotionally vulnerable (recovering from addiction, after suffering a loss, etc.).  Still others do it as a form of protest (Muslims converting, people in China converting, etc.).  And there are still people forced into it by the promise of violence (see: the various shit holes in Africa).

So, not only is an appeal to popularity fallacious in and of itself (popularity has never been synonymous with truth), the notion that all, or even most, Christians arrived at their faith after serious investigation into it is equally fallacious, and laughable to boot.

I just don't get why you stubbornly stick with that.  It's not doing you or your arguments any favors.

I only brought up the vast numbers of Christians as it relates to standards of proof. People weigh the evidence differently and have different thresholds for proof. So, no appeal to popularity.

You outline various reasons why people become Christian. I don't disagree. However, you are not addressing the 20, 40, 60 years they may be a Christian and in various stages of their life investigated some of all of the evidence.