(August 3, 2017 at 8:32 pm)SteveII Wrote:(August 3, 2017 at 1:38 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: It's called defining a term, Steve. You asked what the operant definition of extraordinary was, and when I supply an answer, you cry foul. Heads you win, tails I lose, eh? This is nothing but disingenious game playing. So you can take your baseless claims of fallacy this and fallacy that and shove them where the sun don't shine. You don't like my definition of extraordinary? Then provide some criticism of it, instead of bleating like a wounded sheep.
Regardless of your intentions, 'implausible' actually mean unreasonable, improbable, and failing to convince and so it is exactly what I said it was. If we substitute the definition into your sentence: "unreasonable, improbable, and failing to convince claims require greater evidence to be believed than do more probable events".
So why not stick with extra-ordinary then. And how about we define it as something never before witnessed. The fact that you think the resurrection was witnessed this one time -and presumably only this one time- cannot substantiate the genre when it is the first/only instance of what you've claimed.
If what you've claimed is not extraordinary, then point to the prior noncontroversial instantiation of the same phenomenon. If it is the first/only of its kind, then it is certainly extraordinary and, for those of us not already inclined to expect such things, in need of extraordinary evidence. Otherwise just go on about your business believing stuff you feel satisfied to believe while we go on rejecting it for being beyond the realm of what can be accepted without more than you've offered as justification.