Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[LadyForCamus]

That's not true at all.  I am not making any claims.  I am simply rejecting ancient hearsay as evidence for the theist claim that god exists.  

Two things about that:

1. Most of the NT is not hearsay. John, Peter and James were eyewitnesses. Paul never related the events of Jesus' life. It is not necessarily true that

Lol, Steve. THIS is a claim. How do we verify what they say they witnessed is actually what they supposedly witnessed?

2. Hearsay is evidence. So what you are saying is "I am simply rejecting ancient hearsay [evidence] as evidence..."

Hearsay, by itself is pretty flimsy evidence, Steve. A court would never convict a man of rape or murder on hearsay alone. Why then, do you think it, alone, should it be enough to convince me an all-Omni super-God exists?

So, you are making claims regarding the evidence that is not hearsay and you reject the hearsay evidence without reason (so you say)

Without reason? You've read your book, right?

--in spite of accepting it in every other ancient historical account ever.

What historical accounts have I accepted hearsay for, exactly?

[quote]You (and others) keep saying that there is a reasonable explanation. However, there is none forthcoming that answers all the facts we find in the first century church. Go ahead, try one.

Wha facts from the first century church are you referring to? And why do you think churches are evidence that a god exists?