Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[SteveII]

Hey Steve.... so sorry for writing stuff that makes you write other stuff that gets everyone to jump on you... it's a gift I have

Not a problem. I'm fine-tuning my arguments. The more practice the better. Watch...even this last sentence will get a few replies. I could probably just say "black" and I would get at least 3-4 replies of "white". 

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. 

Yes.... but people here are disagreeing with you because you mangle the ordinary claim that a historical Jesus existed - clearly evidenced by the existence of the gospels and the legions of followers that his presence originated, as you've been telling us all along - with the extraordinary claim that Jesus was as described in those gospels.... that Jesus was the son of God.... that this God exists in the first place. And these claims must be evidenced in reverse order:
1. God exists.... don't forget to define what this "god" thing is... and teach everyone how mankind ever came to possess that information... as far as I can tell, there is no available mechanism for it, so you will have to also supply the mechanism by which we acquired that information.
2. Jesus is the son of God. So says Jesus in the story, huh? Quite self-serving...
3. Jesus was as described in the gospels.

I accept that there are varying levels of claims about Jesus. I have never been shy about arguing for the most extraordinary version. While I do not think is the only evidence, why wouldn't Jesus' life as described in the gospels be evidence for all three? He didn't just claim to be God, he backed it up with miracles, wisdom in everyday living, knowledge of God, knowledge of Man's condition, explained the need to atonement, provided that atonement, and then rose again. 

Regarding 1 specifically, Romans 1:19-21 applies. 

19For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and darkened in their foolish hearts.…

This means information that can be gleaned from Natural Theology of which we can derive quite a few formal arguments from and from those, we can infer a decent amount of information about God (timeless, powerful, omniscient, a personal orderly mind, etc.).

---

1. That isn't even close to being analogous. The tax code does not catalog events that happened--it establishes guidelines for classifying and taxing transactions. 

2. Since the 'Bible' is a collection of 66 books written by 40 some authors over 1500 years, your reasoning goes flying out the window. You see, there is no justification you can use to treat the Bible or the NT as one thing. It wasn't and never will be one thing. Let me re-write your sentence so that it reflects the reality of the situation:

"Can you show me one other contemporaneous record aside from the Bible  Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation which asserts that JC was divine?"

To which I would say that scholars believe there was also Q and possibly M and L. In addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and 1 Clement and more the 12 others that did not make the "canon cut" that were still written in the lifetime of witnesses (before 100AD). 

3. This 'the Bible is the claim' stuff has got to stop. It makes anyone who brings it up sound stupid. To be circular reasoning, the details of the claim would have to be found only in one place and therefore inseparable from one document. We have plenty of independent documents plus the fact that the churches believed the claim prior to the gospels being written. 

4. What else besides eyewitness testimony do we have for any series of historical events? Admit it, your problem isn't with eyewitness, its the content of the claim. And if that's the case, you are the one engaged in question begging/circular reasoning: the NT can't be true because miracles don't happen.

Sorry, but there is no amount of textual material that can ever be good evidence for miracle, supernatural, god claims. [1]

And of course, you are guilty of special pleading by not allowing for the same kind of evidence for other religions texts, besides your own. [2]

I can interview living people, some that have written books, that will attest to their alien abduction experiences. Most of them are honestly and sincerely reporting what they believe is the truth. [3]

Should I believe them? Do you?

I am not saying they are lying, they are probably misinterpreting some other experience.  

Now, why when you move other supernatural stories 2000 years into the pre-scientific past, written decades or more after the alleged experiences, by non eyewitnesses, do supernatural stories become more credible? [4]

Welcome to the party Simon.

1. First, 'good' as it applies to standards of proof is subjective, so that sentence is your opinion. Second, what type of evidence for first century miracles, supernatural, God claims would be 'good' evidence? If this 'good' evidence is not possible, then you are just question begging: miracles can't happen so the NT can't be evidence of miracles. 

2. Not at all. Unlike all of the atheist who make the claim of "no evidence", I am willing to look at the evidence presented from other religions and tell you precisely why I don't find them compelling. Go ahead...present some evidence for another religion and I will tell you why we have apples and oranges and definitely not special pleading.

3. I'm sure they are. What we don't have is other people describing the same single event -- the abduction of one single person. All we have is self-reporting. Here is the real problem with this analogy: if Jesus had written his claims down, you would argue that it needed to be witnessed by others for us to believe!!

4. It is your claim they were not eyewitnesses! They claimed they were. Competing claims...I go with them.