Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[paulpablo]

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.

But your entire premise of all the NT players being fooled has absolutely no evidence except people were fooled before and since. In the absence of any real evidence of deceit it seems that is just an assumption entirely based on the supernatural content of the accounts. If that is so, you are question begging: the events are not evidence of the supernatural because the supernatural does not exist.

No I said the 2000 year old descriptions of events are not compelling evidence of the supernatural.  The reasons are...

1) The supernatural is by definition something we have no compelling evidence for being possible in the realms of nature.

This isn't circular reasoning, I'm just restating the definition of what supernatural is to you so you can understand that, and also explaining to you the importance I place on evidence.
If there's something that by definition we have no credible evidence for being possible in the realms of nature then I don't find it credible for it to be possible for that thing to happen.

It's like me saying do I think a runner runs.  Yes I do because by definition a runner runs.

Are fictional stories true? If you say fictional stories are fiction because they are fiction, it's not a fallacy. It because they aren't true by the definition of being fictional.

By definition of what supernatural is I think there's a lack of credible evidence for it to be possible in the realms of nature.  And evidence is important to me.

And now to talk about the quality of whatever evidence we have.

2) 2000 year old witness testimony isn't credible enough evidence to come to a logical conclusion that something we have no compelling evidence for being possible in the realms of nature is actually possible.