Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Amarok]

1. Only God satisfies the 5W.
2. Provides historical context.
3. Gives reliable accounts.
4. Properly basic sensus divinitatis

1.Busllshit
2.Bullshit
3.Bullshit
4. Nonsense with bullshit

WOW! I had no idea anyone still believed that theory from, what, 40 years ago. You should read more contemporary sources.

Wow I can't believe anyone thinks that it's a 40 years old theory and isn't backed by tons of evidence .

Those are all part of the claim not evidence.

Nope it's the evidence

You mean like other documents? Then you're going to tell me those other documents are claims too that require more documents to support their claims and so on into infinity. That's why the meme is bullshit. We have 4 gospels writing about the same people, places and events. We have several letters discussing those people, places and events. We have historian writing about the central figure mentioned in the 4 gospels and the several letters. We have archaeological evidence for some of those people, like Pilate, and places, like the pool of Bethesda. etc. etc.

we have 4 unrealiable books that are copies are each other no matter how you scoff the idea  and contradict each other on primary issues . We have several unrealiable  letters that do the same. We have no contemporary historian writing about it that is not a suspected forgery. And some finds does not a full narrative make. Because fictional being can have all they above.

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.

Of which there is none And yes there is extraordinary evidence sorry if the dashes your emotional investment .

---

The bible is a claim sorry if theists don't like that fact .