Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[pocaracas]

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. 

I'll admit to not being knowledgeable on the particulars of the Bible, but I do recall that the several books were not written at the same time.
The chronological order by which they were written, at least, so far as can be ascertained today, does present a growing "mythification" of the Jesus person. I think it was Min who already presented some of that here on this thread (maybe even today).
At first we have the historical Jesus, the one who is not the son of any god nor performs miracles, but teaches the scriptures.
At the end, we have a Jesus born of a virgin, son of a god, and who performs all sort of miracles...

A clear evolution of the myth is present there, hinting at a distinction between the historical Jesus and the "extraordinary version", as you call it.


But are those books bound in the Bible in their real chronological order? Or in some special order that diminishes the odds of you finding such an evolution?

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.).

I've heard of that Natural Theology... championed by Aquinas, right?... it is essentially a series of arguments from ignorance... mostly ignorance of physics (some of it, we are still today ignorant of).

But we can try to philosophize about some of those godly attributes...
- timeless - what does this mean?! not bound by time? not present in time? Existing in the absence of time? How does that work? All our verbs imply the existence of time. Any action implies the passage of time, the existence of time. I cannot think of what it may mean to not be present in time... and I'm a physicist with a decent notion of how time flows in some exotic conditions.... but it's always there. No time, means no action, no action means nothing happens.... ever, never.... damn, these words imply time, too. No time means that any action is impossible. Meaning that a creative action is also impossible. Meaning that a conscious thought is impossible. At least, impossible according to the way we consider these actions. If there is another way, I'd like to know about it.... but not by believing it to exist... by actually knowing about it.

- powerful - if such an entity exists that can generate a Universe, yes, I'd agree it to be quite powerful... But this is working things through the wrong way... you were proposing that from Nature, we arrive at these features... and at the very existence.

- omniscient - all knowing? That's a stretch, in my view... how do you get there?

- an orderly mind - As orderly as quantum physics, I suppose...