Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Amarok]

Lastly, did she leave any message that can be examined (did she speak of things that were practical, new, compelling, hopeful, insightful)?

Fictional beings can do all the above. And there is zero evidence jesus said anything .

hundreds of people see you both together

There is zero evidence that anyone saw jesus let alone hundreds

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.

Then you have an F'ed up understanding of probability theory . And no the NT flunks historical methods by yards .

Who else might have encountered her?

Anyone who has encountered fairies . And once again the question can be asked of jesus


How about considering if people intuitively believe in the possibility of Tinkerbells--I guess that might add to the pile of evidence too.

What people intuitively as possible is neither her nor there .

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.

What you bet your life on is irrelevant . Yeah that last sentence is how any of treat your god claims . So thanks for stating a lot I meaningless derp . That only demonstrates his argument .