Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[KevinM1]

We have photographs of Abraham Lincoln. We have documents written and signed by him. We have speeches written by him. We have contemporary accounts of his public appearances. We have not one jot or tittle of anything remotely similar for any godman character.

Still silence on Cato the Elder, Socrates, and Alexander the Great? We have less evidence that any of these existed than for Jesus of Nazareth. If the issue is simply one of having sufficient and reasonably accurate accounts about people from the ancient world, then Jesus of Nazareth stands out as one of the more extensively documented.

Now admittedly, no miraculous claims are being made with respect to these other historical figures. So what? The point SteveII, RoadRunner79, and I are making is that skeptics have abandoned objectivity by ruling out the possibility of supernatural events in advance. In fact, they say that the mere mention of miraculous events in the accounts is proof that the accounts of miracles are false. That move is a basic logical fallacy called "Begging the Question."

Actually, we say that claims of miracles aren't proof of them. And that because of various things (the fact that most religions make miraculous claims, the fact that the burden of proof hasn't been met for any of them, etc.) there's no compelling reason to consider them. Provide credible evidence that your protagonist committed acts that don't comport with known reality, and we'll consider it. Until then, please stop whining about how we're big dummies for not playing along with what has been, due to a lack of evidence, a fantasy.

Keep in mind: the burden of proof regarding the supernatural is pretty high. Not only do you need to prove that the event happened, you need to prove that it couldn't have happened due to a natural process. Given that absolutely nothing in the course of human history has met that burden, forgive us if we remain skeptical with your particular effort. But, by all means, try.