Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[SteveII]

Kind of. While there might be such a thing as an extraordinary event, there is no such thing as a class of extraordinary evidence. There is no philosophical basis in which to demand more than regular evidence and assessment and so this whole enterprise is nothing more than special pleading/moving the goal post/hyperskepticism (thanks RR!). 

We don't demand more than regular evidence and assessment on a philosophical basis: we demand it because we want to draw good conclusions to make good decisions. If someone's claiming something that is within the laws of physics, is supported by empirical evidence and has no profit motive, I don't need as much convincing to believe them as if they are claiming there is an all powerful being controlling my destiny who wants me to give them my money. You really don't understand why? [1]

I can answer 1 and 2a together by explaining it is a cumulative body of evidence that, when considered as a whole, has been compelling to a significant amount of people.
- Documentary (both actual and inferred)
- The churches, the growth, the persecution, and the occasional mention in surviving secular works.
- The characters, their actions, character, stated goals, meaning of their words, and eventual circumstances
- Jesus' own claims (explicit, implicit, connections to the OT--some of which the disciples may have never known).
- The actual message: how it seems to fit the human condition, resonate with people, and how it does not contradict the OT--which would have required a very sophisticated mind to have navigated that.
- Paul and his writings on application--done before the Gospels were independently written. To have them work so well together is incredible.
- This one can't be stressed enough: the likelihood of alternate theories to explain the facts. I think it is obvious people believed from day one when Jesus was still walking around. I have never heard a alternate theory which could account for most or all of the concrete and circumstantial evidence we have.

I don't understand how any of this is evidence. [2]

3. So my point here is that that your position on the existence of the supernatural is not backed by even ordinary evidence. We can then weigh against the evidence I listed above (and much more) AND the properly basic belief of most of the population of the world (now and in the past) that the supernatural exists. The conclusion is that a demand for extraordinary evidence is unfounded (and a result of special pleading/moving the goal post/hyperskepticism).

About 1000 years ago, germ theory was inconceivable. People also believed in witches, that the earth was flat, that the sun moved around the earth. Was the fact that the majority of the population believed in these entirely false assumptions a testament to their validity? Or is a belief in witches the result of fear, misinformation, and a lack of education? It is entirely false to say that because people believe something it is true. If you can prove something it is true. I have no interest in whether a belief is 'compelling to a significant amount of people'. Islam is compelling to 1.8 billion people: do you believe that as well? [3]

1. I'm glad you admit that the criteria is arbitrary. I and 90% of the world have no trouble in believing in the supernatural so do not dismiss evidence simply because it does not conform to a naturalistic worldview. 

2. Then you do not understand the definition of evidence. Don't be one of those people who say this is not evidence--it make you sound foolish. http://pediaa.com/difference-between-evi...and-proof/

3. You are conflating belief about how the world worked with how to interpret things they saw happen with their own eyes. Even first century people knew the difference between healed and not healed, alive and dead, water and wine.

---

That is nowhere near what that sentence says, implies, or means. I will try again.

1. Supernatural events are extraordinary claims because of difficulty obtaining evidence.
2. Ordinary claims are ones in which good evidence is possible to obtain.
3. There is no evidence for atheism 
4. There is some evidence for God (natural theology, revealed theology, the person of Jesus/events of his life, personal experience, properly basic belief in the supernatural in ~90% or the world's population).
5. If evidence for the existence of God can be obtained and cannot be obtained for his non-existence, then on the question of God's existence, at worst, the atheism is making the extraordinary claim, and at best the distinction of 'extraordinary' becomes meaningless.

Bullet points are so much easier to follow! Thank you!

1. Alright... let's go ahead with that one.
2. Seems reasonable....
3. BUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! atheism is not the claim. The claim is theism. Atheism, as a concept, exists because theism has become so powerful it got to be nearly ubiquitous. Look at my reply.... how many made up claims can exist out there, if we assume each and everyone of the a_[claim]_isms has no evidence? (hint: as many as human imagination can conjure up... or more!)
4. All the evidence for God that you present is, at best, circumstantial... at worst, made up.... there's some wiggle room in between for honest mistakes, wrongful attribution, susceptibility, suggestibility, charisma, etc., etc., etc...
5. Oh, sorry... this whole thing broke off at 3., so no... your conclusion is unsupported.

Thank you for playing.
Try again!


But I'll grant you it was a nice try. Such wordy presentations can, and in fact do, convince many people.
And therein lies the problem - a large share of the population can be easily convinced by bad arguments.
I don't know how, but the population needs to acquire critical thinking skills. We can't leave this in the hands of the few who seem to do it effortlessly... these usually lack the required charisma to spread the message convincingly.

3. So what? How does that impact the reasoning? If your going with atheists don't make claims (even though I think most do--even if through ignorance and to ignore the concept of strong atheism) you are still left with the second part of my conclusion: "the distinction of 'extraordinary' becomes meaningless.