Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[LadyForCamus]

Concrete evidence? None of your evidence points to your beliefs as the only possible explanation.  And adding up all this evidence makes it no more proven or likely than any one piece.

While I know I will never get an answer from you, what are the other possible explanations that we see each of those 7 points? Make sure you get them all--because otherwise your theory will collapse like a house of cards. 

I really only ask to point out your inch-deep (if that) knowledge of what you speak of--the proof of which will be the fact you won't answer.

---

In the absence of REAL evidence, deceit is the more likely explanation.  Fixed that for ya.

You too. Inch deep. Go ahead--explain why we have the list above.

The only thing inch deep here is your pool of "evidence." Harry and I have no responsibility to counter you. None of the above listed (separate or cumulatively) are evidence of the existence of God. Other possible (and more reasonable) explanations have been postulated to you and RR time and again, but you don't like those possibilities so you simply dismiss them. If your evidence is sucky, that's on you.

[shadow]

1. I apologize. You said there is no philosophical basis for classifying something as extraordinary--I agree. You said "we demand it because we want to draw good conclusions to make good decisions". I took both of these statements together to mean that the demand for extraordinary evidence is subjective. Correct me if I misunderstood.

90% of the world does not believe in an argument or have arrived at a conclusion based on evidence. I am saying 90% of the world intuitively believes in the supernatural (and this has been true throughout the ages). I think the number is far far higher because I think most are born that way. My point was then that without the imposition of a natualistic worldview, most people don't demand extraordinary evidence -- just ordinary evidence.

2. I apologize again. On just about every page of this thread, someone has told me there is no evidence. It is a stupid statement and I thought you were saying the same. The list I gave was categories of evidence that are available to examine and how they support each other. I am certainly not going to fill up 30 more pages fleshing each one out. If you have a specific question, I would be happy to attempt an answer. 

3. No, they are dead and I was not there. I am taking the stance that there is not one shred of evidence of mass deceit or conspiracy in the NT. 'Goat herders' is not only inaccurate, but a disingenuous attempt strengthen your argument--the technical term--ad hominem.

1a. The demand for any evidence, ever, at all, is subjective if you phrase it that way. Decision making is inherently subjective and based on our best judgement. I mean, philosophy is solidly in the humanities, so the phrase this discussion is about requires that a human is ultimately making the decision. That really has nothing to do with whether the phrase is valuable. It's like saying that $200 is a bad deal for a t-shirt: ultimately subjective, but still quite true. If you're trying to convince me to buy a $200 t-shirt, you're going to need to do a lot more than convince me that technically it's my choice.

1b. 'I am saying 90% of the world intuitively believes in the supernatural'
Because the world is freaking complicated, so people throughout the ages have tried to explain phenomenon that they don't understand with superstition. Science does the job of explaining this kind of thing so much better that the mythical guesswork that society has had to use before we understood the world around us.

' I think the number is far far higher because I think most are born that way.'
No no no. Are most born that way or are we raised that way? The most prevalent example I can think of is my mother: she was born into a highly catholic family and raised under the catholic ideology. She was most definitely born an atheist, but it took her decades to begin thinking about the world because her critical thinking was so stifled by the irrationality she was raised under. This forum is a testament to the number of people like this. Where are you getting this assertion that babies are born religious, as opposed to indoctrinated from the time they open their eyes?


2. I've never seen any of this 'available evidence'. Maybe it's because I'm new here but you guys hash this out frequently? For a specific question: I come from a background in the sciences. If you're going to convince me, I'm going to need some actual empirical evidence that there is a god that can be tested and replicated. Saying that it is written or believed somewhere is not proof of anything. If I believed everything that has been written or believed by millions, I'd believe in dozens of contradictory religions, cults, and conspiracies.

3. If not goat herders, who?

[RoadRunner79]

I noticed a series of posts, along this line from you here.  I feel fairly confident (they can correct me, if I'm wrong) in saying that the theist involved in this conversation are not saying that everything anyone has claimed is always true.   Also in my experience, it is followed by a similar line of questions, for which you believe things, which you have to trust the testimony of others for their validity.  Also in my experience, this takes a very long time for an atheist to admit this when asking questions. 

So, unless you are holding to a position apart from what I described above, and justifying the most rigid fundamentalist and conspiracy theorist out there. (I can think of a lot of things to question, and say there is no evidence for; on these grounds alone)   I thought that perhaps it may speed things up, to skip this part, and move on to discussing what makes a testimony good evidence.

I've read this three times and I still don't have the remotest idea what you're saying.

Basically I am saying, I don't think that any of the theist here are saying, that we should accept all testimony without evaluation.
In my experience, most atheist are not saying, that all testimony should be discarded by default or that it is not evidence at all.

If a number of independent astronomers report the same or similar observations about the universe, That is evidence of the event or property they are describing; even though I didn't see it personally. This is true, even if it is an event, which is not repeatable.

Also in my experience, even when I would quickly admit the position I gave for the theist above, the same line of questions still persisted.  And it took a while but asking the alternative to the atheist I was discussing with, they eventually agreed, that knowledge gained through the experience of another can be evidence.  However by this time, and after the long back and forth, no one wanted to get into discussing how testimony should be evaluated, and what makes it good or bad.

So I'm suggesting that we forego the line of senseless questions, that don't represent eithers position, and move on to what makes testimony evidence.

[shadow]

1. There is a body of information we have (see list) that clearly claims something and provides reasons to believe that something. 
2. If you want to claim that this is not evidence, then you must demonstrate WHY this is not evidence. See, the burden of proof shifted to you once you denied there was evidence (which is a claim). You now have to explain the bits of information we have (again, see the list). 
3. If you were smart, you would take the more modest position of "the evidence is not compelling".

Do you really think this is an important point to argue? You're saying some decent things in my opinion, but it's not really unreasonable that someone would discard very weak evidence as not being evidence at all. There's a point where evidence goes from meaning nothing to meaning something, and it seems like a semantic difference to insist we include the evidence that really means nothing under the category of evidence.

[Minimalist]

Basically I am saying, I don't think that any of the theist here are saying, that we should accept all testimony without evaluation.

No.  You simply over-value anything that tells you what you want to hear.  It is called confirmation bias and it is a terminal condition among jesus freaks.

[SteveII]

[RoadRunner79]

Yes, and you seem to misunderstand where my faith is applied.  It isn't a blind faith.
And I don't believe that I did present any evidence.  Just stated, that my faith is based on it.  I think it is more important, that your evaluation of the evidence, isn't  biased by your aversion to the conclusion.  It's not about what, but the why.  Unless, perhaps the what is contradictory, to something else, which you fell has better support as an evidence standpoint.

I'm not averse to the conclusion. If God is real, I want to know about it. How does the why of something get to precede establishing the existence of it?

I would really be interested to learn about independent corroborating evidence for biblical miracles, the existence of the man portrayed in the gospels (I tend to lean towards their being a real person that the gospels are loosely about, based on textual analysis, but that's pretty slim).

And assuming that I am averse to the conclusion of your argument and that the reason I don't fall down in a swoon over how convincing your evidence is, is very uncharitable and a slimy insinuation that I have done nothing to deserve.

Sorry, Mr. Agenda;

I was speaking more generically here, and did not intend to imply anything about you specifically or about anything you said in this context. I can respect a person who is a true skeptic. However recently I have even seen someone even insinuate, that theist have not even presented their reasons for their beliefs, like it is a big secret. And there are a number of bad arguments made by atheist, which attempt to dismiss evidence, not just to doubt it. (to be fair there are a number of theist who make bad arguments as well).

As to the why instead of the what. I am referring to what the evidence is, not to what the evidence points to. I think that epistemology should be consistent, and that the same arguments made for or against one thing can be applied and be consistent with the conclusion for another thing (apart from committing any category errors). That is that similar reasoning in one instance, applies to the next. It's kind of like algebra, we can insert X and Y and the formulas still hold true, because the underlying principles are true. Would you agree?

And again, I'm sorry, I didn't intend this to be agaisnt anything about you personally but more general. I don't really keep track of people, but I don't know that I could state your positions or any specific arguments you've made. that I would take issue with. Would you agree, that just because we don't like the answer or conclusion, while we may go back and look closer at our initial assumptions and premises, we can't just invalidate the logic or math? By the way, I think some Christians do this as well.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Have you ever read Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities?

I know that was for Steve, but I'd like to interject. I have not read that specific book, but I am generally familiar with his work and the arguments he makes. I read Elaine Pagels a while back and am currently going back to re-read the Nag Hammadi texts in light of what I have more recently come to understand about ancient philosophy (e.g. Plotinus) and classical literature (e.g. Plutarch). There is a lot we do not know about 1st century Christianity. At the same time, people have always known from the time of Irenaeus that there was diversity of opinion. The later is not a significant concern of mine because the differences largely revolved around the significance of Jesus's message and attempts to comprehend His nature and relationship with the Abrahamic God, not generally about the events, places, and people involved. To my mind it seems pretty clear, why some books were rejected from the canon (Thomas, Secret Gospel of John, etc), others reluctantly (John & Revelation), or embraced by only by specific sects (Maccabees, Enoch). Overall, I would say that it is important to acknowledge areas of broad agreement, take note of more speculative alternates (Ehrman, Carrier, etc.), and dismiss wild ideas (Caesar's Messiah, Mushroom Christ, etc.)

[SteveII]

While I know I will never get an answer from you, what are the other possible explanations that we see each of those 7 points? Make sure you get them all--because otherwise your theory will collapse like a house of cards. 

I really only ask to point out your inch-deep (if that) knowledge of what you speak of--the proof of which will be the fact you won't answer.

---

You too. Inch deep. Go ahead--explain why we have the list above.

The only thing inch deep here is your pool of "evidence."  Harry and I have no responsibility to counter you.  None of the above listed (separate or cumulatively) are evidence of the existence of God.  Other possible (and more reasonable) explanations have been postulated to you and RR time and again, but you don't like those possibilities so you simply dismiss them.  If your evidence is sucky, that's on you.  

As I said to Harry, if you say my list is not evidence, you are making a claim that you have knowledge of an alternate explanation to everything I listed that is a matter of fact. This endeavor cannot be summed up with one word answers like deceit, myth, or conspiracy. There has to be a body of facts that account for everything I mentioned. You and Harry have failed to even scratch the surface of doing that.

[The Grand Nudger]

You haven't mentioned any evidence for a god, there's nothing to account for in fairy tales and the people who believe in them. Both of those things are known to exist, more than that...they are evident.

Here you are.