Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[SteveII]

The problem you just so kindly illustrated is that the evidence available to us is the same kind for your psychic and magician/healer illustration. However, through some process that remains unclear, we can set that aside and declare the need for extraordinary evidence. Please explain.

You mean, your stories?  Obviously, it's not the same.  You have ordinary stories, and you wish for that to be evidence of an extraordinary events.  You don't accept that ordinary evidence in the case of anyone else's extraordinary claims..so I don't see why you yammer on about it - it can only expose the weakness of your position.  You believe.  You do not need evidence to believe.  The stories are not evidence of their contents accuracy.  You have faith that they are accurate, but faith is all it is and all it needs to be.  

Why is that so difficult for you?

What do you mean I don't accept ordinary evidence for anyone else's extraordinary claims? How would you know that? To what do you refer? 

And it the body of evidence only included the 'stories', you would have a point. But that's no where near all that it includes (pasted from earlier):
- Documentary (both actual and inferred)
- The churches, the growth, the persecution, and the occasional mention in surviving secular works.
- The characters, their actions, character, stated goals, meaning of their words, and eventual circumstances
- Jesus' own claims (explicit, implicit, connections to the OT--some of which the disciples may have never known).
- The actual message: how it seems to fit the human condition, resonate with people, and how it does not contradict the OT--which would have required a very sophisticated mind to have navigated that.
- Paul and his writings on application and affirmation of the major claims--done before the Gospels were independently written. To have them work so well together is incredible.
- This one can't be stressed enough: the unlikelihood of alternate theories to explain the facts. I think it is obvious people believed from day one when Jesus was still walking around. I have never heard an alternate theory which could account for most or all of the concrete and circumstantial evidence we have.

I do have some measure of faith they are accurate--but my point is and will continue to be, there is much more evidence that supports reasonable belief than the standard internet-bred atheist thinks. I have never demanded that anyone find it compelling, but claim there is "no evidence" (made left and right on this site) is just stupid talk and someone has to point that out--because atheist here hardly ever call out each other on stupidity.

[Foxaèr]

You mean, your stories?  Obviously, it's not the same.  You have ordinary stories, and you wish for that to be evidence of an extraordinary events.  You don't accept that ordinary evidence in the case of anyone else's extraordinary claims..so I don't see why you yammer on about it - it can only expose the weakness of your position.  You believe.  You do not need evidence to believe.  The stories are not evidence of their contents accuracy.  You have faith that they are accurate, but faith is all it is and all it needs to be.  

Why is that so difficult for you?

What do you mean I don't accept ordinary evidence for anyone else's extraordinary claims? How would you know that? To what do you refer? 

And it the body of evidence only included the 'stories', you would have a point. But that's no where near all that it includes (pasted from earlier):
- Documentary (both actual and inferred)
- The churches, the growth, the persecution, and the occasional mention in surviving secular works.
- The characters, their actions, character, stated goals, meaning of their words, and eventual circumstances
- Jesus' own claims (explicit, implicit, connections to the OT--some of which the disciples may have never known).
- The actual message: how it seems to fit the human condition, resonate with people, and how it does not contradict the OT--which would have required a very sophisticated mind to have navigated that.
- Paul and his writings on application and affirmation of the major claims--done before the Gospels were independently written. To have them work so well together is incredible.
- This one can't be stressed enough: the unlikelihood of alternate theories to explain the facts. I think it is obvious people believed from day one when Jesus was still walking around. I have never heard an alternate theory which could account for most or all of the concrete and circumstantial evidence we have.

I do have some measure of faith they are accurate--but my point is and will continue to be, there is much more evidence that supports reasonable belief than the standard internet-bred atheist thinks. I have never demanded that anyone find it compelling, but claim there is "no evidence" (made left and right on this site) is just stupid talk and someone has to point that out--because atheist here hardly ever call out each other on stupidity.

Your idea of evidence is merely that. Your idea of it.

[Succubus]

The events during and following the life of Jesus are some of the most attested to series of events in ALL of ancient history.

This popular mantra among Christian fundies is a blatant knowing lie! Why am I not surprised you never bothered your arse to make an appearance in this thread: The First Century Void

We know exactly what the first century Christians believed and much of what they did. Even Bart Ehrman thinks the NT is 99% of what it was originally.

This is not evidence for Jesus, it is evidence for Christianity, not the same thing now is it?

[Mister Agenda]

Until you do, I have a unaddressed body of evidence that BILLIONS (in case you were not clear on the size of the jury) of people have considered and determined that it meets the standard of proof they chose for themselves--whether that be "beyond reasonable doubt", "clear and convincing evidence", "preponderance of the evidence", "substantial evidence", or "some evidence".

About 2 billion people; and about 5 billion who came to a different conclusion. If you were less hypocritical, you'd count the billions more who aren't Christians against the likelihood of Christianity. And if you were logical, you'd stop appealing to how many people agree with you.

No one is disputing that billions of people believe in one sect of Christianity or another. The question is whether they're correct in their assessment.

[paulpablo]

I just re read what I wrote and that part was a mistake.  I didn't mean no evidence, I actually meant no compelling evidence.

I did actually put at the beginning of that post that there is some evidence, just not compelling.

I said there is ordinary evidence in the form of a book written about the events.  For the sake of simplicity I'll agree that the evidence shows people believed Jesus did miracles.

This isn't no evidence, it's just a lack of compelling evidence due to the fact that people making claims thousands of years ago is a weak foundation to place a belief on.

What casts doubt on the evidence is that we have evidence of people 

a) Being deceptive and lying about supernatural events.
b) Being deceived by other people into thinking a supernatural event happened.

We have cult leaders alive now who have followers who would say their leaders can perform miracles.  We have evidence that these types of people have existed through history.

It isn't just a lack of compelling evidence, it's evidence that a much more simple conclusion can be drawn and is possible.

In any area where reason and evidence are important the evidence put forth in the style of the NT couldn't stand.

It's ancient witness testimony of supernatural events.

This doesn't mean the miracles and supernatural events in the NT are definitely impossible it just means that practically speaking it's much more sound and logical to conclude that the supernatural events didn't happen.

It's certainly very reasonable to say that there's always more evidence backing up a non supernatural version of events rather than a supernatural.

The definition of supernatural is of something that isn't practically possible within the laws of nature and we try and reasonably conclude what is and isn't possible via evidence.

Therefore it's pretty much something that has already been concluded due to be practically impossible to happen based on the lack of evidence that it can happen and/or evidence we do have that it couldn't happen.

But your entire premise of all the NT players being fooled has absolutely no evidence except people were fooled before and since. In the absence of any real evidence of deceit it seems that is just an assumption entirely based on the supernatural content of the accounts. If that is so, you are question begging: the events are not evidence of the supernatural because the supernatural does not exist.

No I said the 2000 year old descriptions of events are not compelling evidence of the supernatural.  The reasons are...

1) The supernatural is by definition something we have no compelling evidence for being possible in the realms of nature.

This isn't circular reasoning, I'm just restating the definition of what supernatural is to you so you can understand that, and also explaining to you the importance I place on evidence.
If there's something that by definition we have no credible evidence for being possible in the realms of nature then I don't find it credible for it to be possible for that thing to happen.

It's like me saying do I think a runner runs.  Yes I do because by definition a runner runs.

Are fictional stories true? If you say fictional stories are fiction because they are fiction, it's not a fallacy. It because they aren't true by the definition of being fictional.

By definition of what supernatural is I think there's a lack of credible evidence for it to be possible in the realms of nature.  And evidence is important to me.

And now to talk about the quality of whatever evidence we have.

2) 2000 year old witness testimony isn't credible enough evidence to come to a logical conclusion that something we have no compelling evidence for being possible in the realms of nature is actually possible.

[SteveII]

Bold mine. This is what your whole post boils down to. 

The events during and following the life of Jesus are some of the most attested to series of events in ALL of ancient history. We know exactly what the first century Christians believed and much of what they did. Even Bart Ehrman thinks the NT is 99% of what it was originally. I don't care if you don't find it compelling. But this constant nonsense (not just you) of "no evidence" is just silly and show a lack of understanding the evidence, or bad reasoning skills, or misunderstanding definitions, or a bias you bring to the subject. 

In case anyone is hazy on the difference, here is an excellent discussion on it at http://pediaa.com/difference-between-evi...and-proof/

Your link is not an excellent discussion.

Proof is for maths and alcohol.

Evidence is proportionately weighed in light of the claim being made.

Water is normally wet. Easy.

Dead man rises and is also God. Hmmmm.

There are ancient texts from many cultures that say weird things that one can not now rationally believe.

There are even conspiracy theories in contemporary cultures that one doesn't rationally believe.

You have evidence, in the form of your OT and NT documents. I accept that.

Your evidence is not good enough to convince a skeptical mind IMHO.

Your God knows that, and, if real, would also know what would convince me.

It is plausible to me that he either doesn't exist, or doesn't care.

I haven't set up a formal logical dichotomy, I may agree, but.......

Fair points. I hope that God provides what you need to find him.

[Minimalist]

He doesn't seem up to the task.... and neither are you.

[The Grand Nudger]

What do you mean I don't accept ordinary evidence for anyone else's extraordinary claims? How would you know that? To what do you refer? 

At what point do you think I'll start to pussyfoot around with you?

And it the body of evidence only included the 'stories', you would have a point. But that's no where near all that it includes (pasted from earlier):
- Documentary (both actual and inferred)
- The churches, the growth, the persecution, and the occasional mention in surviving secular works.
- The characters, their actions, character, stated goals, meaning of their words, and eventual circumstances
- Jesus' own claims (explicit, implicit, connections to the OT--some of which the disciples may have never known).
- The actual message: how it seems to fit the human condition, resonate with people, and how it does not contradict the OT--which would have required a very sophisticated mind to have navigated that.
- Paul and his writings on application and affirmation of the major claims--done before the Gospels were independently written. To have them work so well together is incredible.
- This one can't be stressed enough: the unlikelihood of alternate theories to explain the facts. I think it is obvious people believed from day one when Jesus was still walking around. I have never heard an alternate theory which could account for most or all of the concrete and circumstantial evidence we have.

"well...there's this book....see"

I do have some measure of faith they are accurate--but my point is and will continue to be, there is much more evidence that supports reasonable belief than the standard internet-bred atheist thinks. I have never demanded that anyone find it compelling, but claim there is "no evidence" (made left and right on this site) is just stupid talk and someone has to point that out--because atheist here hardly ever call out each other on stupidity.

If there were evidence you wouldn't keep trying to bicker about a storybook and how stupid and dumb this or that is and how atheists never call each other out on stuff and whaaaaa...whaaaaaaaa...whaaaa.

It would be evident. No one has expressed skepticism about the existence of magic book and churches and people who go to church believing in magic book - everyone knows that those things exist. Here's an alternate theory, people tell stories. Now..no one is required to give you an alternate theory, things don;t become true by virtue of being written on a cave wall..but I'd love to see you step on your own dick denying that people tell stories. Have at it.

[Succubus]

...and the occasional mention in surviving secular works...

Josephus/Tacitus in 3. 2. 1...

[Mister Agenda]

Bold mine. This is what your whole post boils down to. 

The events during and following the life of Jesus are some of the most attested to series of events in ALL of ancient history. We know exactly what the first century Christians believed and much of what they did. Even Bart Ehrman thinks the NT is 99% of what it was originally. I don't care if you don't find it compelling. But this constant nonsense (not just you) of "no evidence" is just silly and show a lack of understanding the evidence, or bad reasoning skills, or misunderstanding definitions, or a bias you bring to the subject. 

In case anyone is hazy on the difference, here is an excellent discussion on it at http://pediaa.com/difference-between-evi...and-proof/

What it was originally is a story. Ehrman thinks it's 99% the same story originally told. The argument isn't about what 1st Century Christians believed, it's about whether their beliefs were correct. In support of that, we have the story they told. It's hearsay with no provenance. Many of the ordinary events portrayed may well have happened, but there are too many reasonable alternative explanations for the extraordinary claims for it to be reasonable to take them at face value.