Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[pocaracas]

I agree, I find it frustrating that Steve thinks he has this though.

If his bullshit was so obvious we would all believe. So he either thinks we are in wilful denial or that we are fibbers. Or, and he won't accept this, he may be wrong.

You repeatedly miss my point. I don't care if you don't find the evidence compelling. I argue against those who are confused about what a claim of "no evidence" means and I discuss things with those who want to discuss the evidence there is. As it pertains to this thread, there is no such thing as extraordinary evidence. Only evidence.

What is extraordinary evidence?

If I claim I just finished lunch, would you require any further evidence than my say so?
Ah, but wait, would you know that I'm in Western Europe, you could easily reason that I should have just finished dinner, not lunch... so my easily believed claim turns out to be false.
An ordinary claim falls by the wayside with ordinary information.

Now what if I claim I just had dinner? There's no reason to doubt me - it's the right time for it, people in Europe usually have dinner every day, the World Health Organization advises people to have 3 meals a day and one of them is dinner. You yourself have dinner almost every day. Nothing in your experience, nor in the information you have of other people's experiences, is informing you that this claim should be doubted. Hence you are automatically led to believe it.

But what if I add some elements to my claimed dinner?
I just had dinner with my sister. Also no reason to doubt me, huh? Loads of people have sisters and having dinner with them is completely natural. Well... knowing that I have only one brother would put a damper on that, but without that precious piece of information, you'd have every reason to believe me just for saying it.

I just had dinner with Angelina Jolie (damn, I'm getting old for referencing once-hot babes). Would you believe it just based on my say so? Would you accept that claim as true and maybe someday tell the tale of how you know a guy who had dinner with Angelina? Or would you doubt me and require further evidence of that claim? The famous internet adage of "pics or it didn't happen"! Since the advent of Photoshop, even pics can be doubted. Let's say I provided a pic where I and Angelina are seated on opposite sides of a table, all set for a meal. Would you believe that pic at face value? Or would you pour over it in search of evidence of photoshopping?
A photo... that's it. That would probably convince that I, at least, had some meal with Angelina... You'd look for evidence of it being nighttime... and would, if I gave you a digital copy of the photo, look into the EXIF metadata to ascertain that it had been taken today... and maybe get lucky with some GPS data embedded.

A photo and some more info. Info you know I'd have to be very knowledgeable to alter just for the sake of a claim.
That's the extraordinary evidence that would be required for you to believe in my claim that I just had dinner with Angelina Jolie. It's extraordinary because it's not the sort of evidence you'd require for a similar claim (dinner with sister).

And what's the believer's claim? First, there is a god, an entity that sits outside of the Universe and that is capable of creating Universes. My first knee jerk reaction is, of course, How would you know about that?! How did that information reach you? From where did that information come? How was it conveyed?
What sort of evidence do you expect to provide to answer these questions?
For all these knee jerk questions, the believer, at best, can tell me something along the lines of "divine inspiration". That's covering up a plot-hole with another hole. How do you know it's divine inspiration and not imagination? How can you distinguish the two?
Some will go further and point to the absence of knowledge concerning the origin of the Universe and then present their solution, as if it doesn't have to answer those first questions. Many, many, many alternatives can be presented for the origin of the Universe... How to discern the correct one?

Even without these questions answered - questions that pertain only to the information conveyed to you concerning this god - I can go to questions about the god itself. What is it? How does it generate Universes? Does it control the Universes it creates? Does it have companion gods? How can I interact with it?
None of these is satisfactorily answered by any religion.
The last question is asking about evidence... how can I gather my own evidence about this entity, without having to resort to you as a gateway? I don't even want you to give me evidence for that entity, I want to do it myself. Actually, I just want to know how to do it myself. Once that mechanism is understood and considered trustworthy, then I can accept your interactions with said deity.

Is this taken care of?
Of course not!!
Still, you then go on to claim stuff about a person who lived 2000 years ago. Centuries after my knee jerk reaction failed to be answered. Even without it being answered, tons of people became believers in some form or other of deity.
Having a population of believers, it's not a stretch to make them believe in something further about the same deity they already believe in... and thus evolve the religion.