(August 1, 2017 at 4:53 am)pocaracas Wrote:(July 31, 2017 at 9:09 pm)SteveII Wrote: 1. My point is that even a photo of you and Angelina is not extraordinary. It is just a photo--to which we can apply the question--is the unlikely probability of Poc having lunch with Angelina overcome by the probability of seeing a picture of them together if it did not happen? Even the most improbably events can be compared by examining ordinary evidence in this way.
You forget that you already know who Angeline Jolie is. You've seen her. You know what to expect. You know she's a human being much like us; you know what her face looks like.
A photo of me having dinner with her is extraordinary in the sense of... what are the odds of that dinner happening? [1] What would be required for me to have such a photo?
Of all the photos that I have ever taken with my face on them... not a single one has Angelina. What are the odds that I'd show up with one that does?
I could go even more extraordinary by claiming I had dinner with a fairy called Tinker Bell. Now what would you consider evidence enough of my claim?
This claim is not only that I had dinner with Tink, but also that Tink is a fairy.
(July 31, 2017 at 9:09 pm)SteveII Wrote: The rest of your example about the lunch/dinner/sister simply involves whether I take your word for it. I asked for no evidence. If I had a thousand dollar bet on whether you had dinner with your sister, I would ask you for some very ordinary evidence and apply the very same reasoning above. Same situation for you, but my interest has changed.
The bet is an interesting addition.
Not only because it changes your requirements to believe me, but also... why is there a bet in the first place?
Let's say you have a standing bet on your life (not some measly thousand dollars) that I didn't have dinner with the fairy Tinker Bell. At what sort of evidence would you accept that the terms of the bet have been met and give your life away?
I'm sure a mere photo would not be enough. Even a video could be edited, so you shouldn't take it as sufficient, even if some fairy magic was shown in the video.
What, short of producing Tinker Bell for you to examine directly and without any middlemen, would you consider enough evidence that Tinker Bell is a fairy and I had dinner with her?
(gotta tap that fairy tail!)
1. But you are just talking about probability assessments. Way back in the OP and on page 2, I mentioned that even an improbable event on one side can be more than counterbalanced by the even lower probability that you would have the evidence (a photo in this example) if the event had not happened (probability theory). There is nothing extraordinary about the photo. The photo is ordinary evidence because there are billions of photos taken each day. We did not demand nor did you offer more than ordinary proof for your dinner.
As it applies to my NT arguments, evidence that we would accept for any historical event should be accepted for the events that the gospels describe (applying the probability theory I mentioned above). A demand for better or more (what I take "extraordinary" in the title of this thread to mean) evidence has no power that can render what we do have as 'not evidence'. This last sentence is core to my argument. Therefore the phrase "Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence" is false.
Regarding Tinkerbell, I would not require just one piece of evidence. I would require at least 27. Did hundreds of people see you both together and act on that knowledge (like tell their family at the time)? I would also have to consider some background evidence, where she was first mentioned? Who else might have encountered her? Does she have any effect on her environment that we can add to the pile? How about considering if people intuitively believe in the possibility of Tinkerbells--I guess that might add to the pile of evidence too. Lastly, did she leave any message that can be examined (did she speak of things that were practical, new, compelling, hopeful, insightful)? I would consider all these things evidence. However, your analogy breaks down on betting my life on it. I would never have an inner experience/relationship with her that assured me she was real so would never rise to the level of betting my life on it.
