Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Minimalist]

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

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

The fuckers will never give that up.  They love their little lies for jesus.

[Foxaèr]

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.

Except according to Steve there are no reasonable alternatives.

For him it's "God exists and you just don't understand religion".

[Mister Agenda]

Oh, I get it. Like if someone whats to demonstrate that the supernatural exists, maybe they would hang around for 3 years and perform series of miracles that only had supernatural explanations. How many miracles would that person have to do before a "success rate beyond the ordinary range described by brute force of statistics" was established?

Just one that left lasting physical evidence with no natural explanation would be a good start. Say a mountain moved from a mountain range to the middle of the desert, and the trail it left behind, for example.
We might argue about it, but we wouldn't be able to say something extraordinary didn't happen, particularly if there were a multitude of corroborating texts of the event by eyewitnesses of many backgrounds who thought the event was worth noting down for posterity.

[Minimalist]

First off, he needs any evidence at all.  After that, he can start with worrying about extraordinary evidence.

All gods are bullshit.  He'd agree in 99% of the cases ever presented by history but he still thinks that HIS bullshit story is real.

There is no getting through to an asshole like that.

[The Grand Nudger]

OH IDK, that there is evidence appears to be another thing he compulsively needs to believe.  The modern world has been subverting believers and their beliefs for some time now. They;re no longer content with an ineffable, mysterious, and divinely hidden force. They insist on a tinkering product engineer who can be seen everywhere.

[SteveII]

Anyone want to discuss this part of the OP:

First point. Of course someone being supernaturally healed or rising from the dead is an improbable claim. However, the improbability of this event could be counter-balanced by examining the evidence and simply asking the question: what is the probability of this evidence being present had a miracle not occurred? As this probability number goes down, the probability of the event having a supernatural cause goes up. Notice that there is no requirement that the evidence be 'extraordinary'.

And latter I added:

And that is exactly what I was referring to in my probability discussion. You are stopping at one side of the probability calculus--just the probability of seeing miracle R|B over the probability of seeing not-R|B (the middle of the equation). You have to also assess the probability of E|R&B over the probability of seeing E|not-R&B. 



R = Resurrection 
B = Background information (the supernatural exists)
E = Evidence

[Mister Agenda]

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.

It's the Bayesian probability that you claim to be employing. We KNOW people have been, can be, and will continue to be deceived. We don't know that miracles are possible. Therefore, it will take more to establish that miracles are possible than stories about miracles by people for whom it is a FACT that they may have been deceived.

In my story about putting on my pants and then hovering over my house via telekinesis, did you have trouble telling which component of my story was more likely to be a deception?

The extraordinary evidence that is referred to is the sort of evidence that would make it more likely for a reasonably skeptical person to conclude that I actually did the telekinetic hovering than that I just made up a story where I have powerful psychokinetic gifts. Does telling another story about my ability to fly with no visible means of support constitute more evidence? What about me getting a friend to support my claim?

Or do all those constitute claims, with no evidence yet presented?

[Foxaèr]

Anyone want to discuss this part of the OP:

First point. Of course someone being supernaturally healed or rising from the dead is an improbable claim. However, the improbability of this event could be counter-balanced by examining the evidence and simply asking the question: what is the probability of this evidence being present had a miracle not occurred? As this probability number goes down, the probability of the event having a supernatural cause goes up. Notice that there is no requirement that the evidence be 'extraordinary'.

And latter I added:

And that is exactly what I was referring to in my probability discussion. You are stopping at one side of the probability calculus--just the probability of seeing miracle R|B over the probability of seeing not-R|B (the middle of the equation). You have to also assess the probability of E|R&B over the probability of seeing E|not-R&B. 



R = Resurrection 
B = Background information (the supernatural exists)
E = Evidence

I can certainly mention your idea of discussion as being nothing more than hooey in relation to realistic terms as opposed to the delusional brilliance you perceive.

[The Grand Nudger]

Wanna do the math again, Steve.....

[Foxaèr]

It's interesting how Steve has written me off, not responding to anything where I quote him.

Sorry that I am shoving the truth in your face, but is such a religious belief really the only alternative?