Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Thumpalumpacus]

To your Second Point:   I agree, we can make mistakes of observation or memory, but I think there is a problem if you are explaining things away in this manner, just because it conflicts with your worldview.  These types of mistakes have limits, and I think the evaluation of them are going to depend on the details.    Concerning insanity and hallucinations.   First how are you determining your probability for God?

No. First, why is "god" a better answer than "I don't know"? You cannot demonstrate that any god exists. I am not obliged to consider that a reasonable answer until such a demonstration occurs. And in the meantime, I'll continue to support with my words, taxes, and donations, scientific efforts to arrive at answers. It's not that I don't think it can be god; it's that that possibility is so remote as to be meaningless. Let's face it: believers cannot even agree on the nature of this god they bandy about as an "explanation". When you say "goddidit", I'm asking "God who? Which god?"

I'm all ears, but the main reason why I reject your god, and those of others, as explanations, is that I have so often seen those explanations fail in ridiculously spectacular fashion. Do you believe Thor makes thunder? Why or why not? When you know the answer to that question for yourself, you will understand my answer to your question: evidence, or lack thereof.

Additionally... without other reasons what do you think that the likelihood of a normally healthy person who doesn't have a history of hallucinations or similar defects, just happens to have one, right when it conflicts with your world view.

I dunno. Why don't you tell me how often it happens?

It doesn't seem quite right, to be able to assume on this alone (also who decides what worldview we use).  Now normally I would say that we can know reality through others confirming that what we see or experience  is true.  That if others are seeing something that no one else does, then it is reasonable to reduce the explanation down to the common factor.  However this requires others to be present at the time, and give their report of what was not seen. I may ahve to give this a little more thought and do some research.  I don't really understand the extents of this type of mental illness and it's limits.

If someone says they see a guy walking on water and no one was there to see it, and the camera on his phone just mysteriously would not work, I am entitled to think he's probably not delivering an accurate representation of reality. As Hitchens put it, "that which may be advanced without evidence may be dismissed without evidence."

Put shortly, I'm under no obligation to disprove the ridiculous. If you want me to believe the ridiculous, you'd better have ridiculously good evidence.