Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[SteveII]

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. 

Why? It's a fact and there is no way around it. Arguing against the bible being the claim is like arguing against the holocaust.

Hmmm...what claim do Christians make that kind of defines the whole Christianity thing?
I know, I know...the Bible!

---

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.

I'm all for calling the events of the NT extraordinary. Later in the post I explain why I think there is no such thing as extraordinary evidence -- just evidence.