standard of evidence

[Zen Badger]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, if I told you I have a car in my garage, you wouldn't require much evidence. If I had a ferrari f-40, you may be in need of more evidence. If I told you that my ferrari is invisible and it may be seen only by those that truly believe™ it is there, how do you go about proving that?

If you understood the analogy, there is also the fact that there are alot of religions, how do you go about proving yours is the right one, since there is no way to show it?

the extraordinary claims objection is not a rational objection by any means due to the fact that it's completely subjective. how do you objectively determine whether something is an extraordinary claim? you can't any more than you can claim pizza is the best tasting food. different people have different opinions on what is extraordinary. to a prince in a tropical climate who has never seen ice before, the very description of ice would to him seem extraordinary. does this mean he is justified not believing there is ice? of course not.
the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence claim is nothing more than a catchy phrase with no practical value.

Until you actually show him some ice, then if he is a rational person he will accept it.
Therefore, bad analogy.