Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Thumpalumpacus]

That's right. The book is the claim, not the evidence.

There's a term for logic that asserts that the claim is the evidence; it's called circular reasoning.

You are wrong. The Claim is that the events outlined in the gospels really happened--one in particular: that Jesus Christ, the son of God, came to earth to redeem humanity and provide a way for people to have a relationship with God. The gospels catalog the claim.

This is akin to arguing that taxation is a natural part of reality, and that Federal law only "catalogs" it. It's an idiotic argument. Can you show me one other contemporaneous record aside from the Bible which asserts that JC was divine? That's right, you cannot.

And that means that semantics aside, the Bible is the claim. And that means that pointing to it as evidence that the claims it "catalogs" is circular reasoning.

I've already got every reason to think poorly of viewpoint -- you consider eyewitness testimony accurate when every first-year psychology student knows otherwise (and has been shown as much by a staged event arranged by the professor.) The only thing this post does is convince me even more that you and your views merit little if any attention.

---

And their is no other evidence, with which to identify me as the culprit.

Fingerprints.

This is evidence that believers don't always get the idea of evidence.