Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[KevinM1]

So a hypothetical question. A few of us, along with some strangers are sitting in a room (say 11 people in total) I'm trying to have a discussion with Tazzy, and he just keeps calling me names, refuses to engage in anything, and just repeats back any accusation I make without even paying attention to the context. (you know the child's game of I know you are but what am I). I lose it, and hit him over the head with a chair, seriously injuring him (blind sided him of course). No one lets me leave, until the cops get there. Everyone gives slightly different accounts. Some seen the whole thing, some where distracted until the ruckus broke out. But everyone reports the same story, that I maliciously injured Tazzy. And their is no other evidence, with which to identify me as the culprit.

Is anyone seriously going to tell me, that they have no evidence with which to hold and convict me? That it's just one story against mine? If the nightly news didn't cover it, does that negate the others claims (after all what self respecting news reporter is going to air a story without evidence)? Do we need a scientist to duplicate the event in a lab in order to evidence the story? Do we need to find someone in the room that doesn't believe the claim, but corroborates it? Do their accounts need to include mundane details about who I am, like I fart on the bus and blame other people. Is the testimony of these 10 other people the claim or the evidence.

Now none of this is true, it's a hypothetical. Don't worry Tazzy, I don't wish you any ill will, and actually pray for your wellbeing. However the reasoning behind an answer doesn't rely on it being real (just like substituting a variable into an equation).

How would you honestly answer, not trying to divert or dodge the issue.

Did you claim to be the son of god? Do the people in the room claim you performed miracles?

Guys, the matter at hand isn't really the mundane. Someone getting laid out by a chair is a simple assertion, and the burden of proof is easily met. The problem is that the burden of proof becomes harder to meet as the assertion becomes more fanciful. Tazzy being laid out by a WWE chair shot is not in the same realm as someone performing miracles, coming back from the dead, and, oh yeah, is the only way to achieve eternal salvation. And witness accounts coming from sources with a vested interest in selling the story should only be considered with a huge grain of salt, if at all.

I think most of us are willing to concede that a historical Jesus existed (either as a singular figure or an amalgamation of several). But there's no logical bridge from "hey, this upstart prophet existed, gained a following, pissed off the establishment, and was killed" to "he was also the son of god, and belief in him is the only way to escape eternal hell." Satisfying the burden of proof for one doesn't reduce the burden of the other. And that's what this thread is about: Steve's tired list of items about Christianity (mostly its continued existence) being proof for Christianity (that its supernatural claims are true). It doesn't work that way.

Again, this isn't rocket science.