Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[paulpablo]

I think the NT provides some level of ordinary evidence.  I'll talk about the sections talking about the life of Jesus just because I don't know about all of the NT and just for the sake of conversation to keep it easier.

Someone wrote a book about it, there may have been some witnesses.  That's about it.

There are many MANY things that can be considered to cast doubt on the claims of the new testament.

The fact that it does contain a type of religious leader who is able to perform supernatural actions in the form of miracles.

This isn't begging the question or circular reasoning.  I'm not saying supernatural things can't happen because they're supernatural.

I'm saying we have no evidence (beyond what I previously mentioned) of them (supernatural events in the NT) happening, we do have evidence of people being deceived into believing supernatural actions/events do happen.

There's the situation of the evidence and witness testimony being so old, combined with the supernatural actions.

If the claim was for example "Mary walked across the stepping stones on this river 2000 years ago" then it can be taken with a shrug.  You could think, ok maybe she did, who cares?  Her footprints are long gone, anyone who saw her is long dead, the children of whoever saw her are long dead and so are the grandchildren of her children.

If the claim is that "Jesus came back from the dead, had a chat with people, turned water into wine and walked on water over 2000 years ago."

We're in the same situation, plus supernatural events.  The witnesses are long dead, the wine has been drank, no photos no film, nothing but what people said and wrote down.

So we have no evidence of people being able to use actual real magic and miracles to walk on water, come back from the dead, turn water into wine.

 Can people be tricked into believing this has happened?   Yes, we have evidence people can deceive other people into believing magic things happened, or just lying about it to begin with

 Do cult followers believe their leaders can do these type of things now? 

 Do cult leaders perform real magic supernatural miracles now, or is it true that there are people who are capable of deceiving other people into believing miracles and magic have been performed?

How reasonable is it that a cult leader 2000 years ago could have had witnesses claiming he did miracles when he actually didn't do them.

How reasonable is it to think that the cult leader 2000 years ago performed real magic miracles on the basis of whatever evidence we have.

I'm giving benefit of the doubt though, I'll be willing to go along with a hypothetical situation in which we know these witnesses were real people and this book was written by followers of Jesus, I know a lot of people doubt he even existed or that his followers did.

Bold mine. This is what your whole post boils down to. 

The events during and following the life of Jesus are some of the most attested to series of events in ALL of ancient history. We know exactly what the first century Christians believed and much of what they did. Even Bart Ehrman thinks the NT is 99% of what it was originally. I don't care if you don't find it compelling. But this constant nonsense (not just you) of "no evidence" is just silly and show a lack of understanding the evidence, or bad reasoning skills, or misunderstanding definitions, or a bias you bring to the subject. 

In case anyone is hazy on the difference, here is an excellent discussion on it at http://pediaa.com/difference-between-evi...and-proof/

I just re read what I wrote and that part was a mistake. I didn't mean no evidence, I actually meant no compelling evidence.

I did actually put at the beginning of that post that there is some evidence, just not compelling.

I said there is ordinary evidence in the form of a book written about the events.  For the sake of simplicity I'll agree that the evidence shows people believed Jesus did miracles.

This isn't no evidence, it's just a lack of compelling evidence due to the fact that people making claims thousands of years ago is a weak foundation to place a belief on.

What casts doubt on the evidence is that we have evidence of people 

a) Being deceptive and lying about supernatural events.
b) Being deceived by other people into thinking a supernatural event happened.

We have cult leaders alive now who have followers who would say their leaders can perform miracles.  We have evidence that these types of people have existed through history.

It isn't just a lack of compelling evidence, it's evidence that a much more simple conclusion can be drawn and is possible.

In any area where reason and evidence are important the evidence put forth in the style of the NT couldn't stand.

It's ancient witness testimony of supernatural events.

This doesn't mean the miracles and supernatural events in the NT are definitely impossible it just means that practically speaking it's much more sound and logical to conclude that the supernatural events didn't happen.

It's certainly very reasonable to say that there's always more evidence backing up a non supernatural version of events rather than a supernatural.

The definition of supernatural is of something that isn't practically possible within the laws of nature and we try and reasonably conclude what is and isn't possible via evidence.

Therefore it's pretty much something that has already been concluded due to be practically impossible to happen based on the lack of evidence that it can happen and/or evidence we do have that it couldn't happen.