Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[pocaracas]

People make claims, sure... Whether they're theists or atheists.
But you were saying that atheism is a claim. That it is a more extraordinary claim than theism, on account of the absence of evidence for it.
I'm saying theism is the claim and atheism is simply the position of not accepting the theism claim... Unlike many other possible a[claim]isms, this one developed a name throughout human history... Because the theism claim has had some success for a long time, most of which mankind was mostly ignorant of the world.
But now we know better, we have many tools at our disposal to probe the world and figure out how it works... Thus far, none of those tools has yielded anything resembling a god - not that they're looking for a god, but for something that is claimed to be so omni, it seems remarkably absent. And this renders the theism claim an extraordinary one .
Like a claim that any work of fiction is indeed real. The force, magic, the TARDIS, zylons, Klingons, etc... The claim that any of these is real is an extraordinary claim and would require some hefty evidence. While the default "I don't believe that claim" requires no evidence at all. You just need to go "nothing in the reality that humans agree upon support that such a claim is true".
And no, cosplayers, people talking about those fictional universes, speaking in languages from those universes, or even providing testimony that they're real is not credible evidence.

If we go with "atheists make no claims" then as to the question of is there a God, we have some evidence that there is and on the other side, we have no evidence there is not (I'll even grant you by definition). My point was and is that if there can only be evidence on one side of the equation, the distinction or need of 'extraordinary evidence' is meaningless. Any evidence is sufficient to increase the probability, because there is no rebuttal evidence to overcome. 

I understand your point of view.... but the thing is, if we follow your logic, anything that imagination can conjure up will, by default, have some evidence to support it, while having no evidence to support its non-existence.
As one can easily see, this reasoning cannot be applied to anything, for it delivers no reliable conclusion.
And "anything" includes the answer to the question of is there a god.

For the same reason, I pointed out that strong atheism actually would be the extraordinary claim because it is doing so with no ordinary evidence.

For strong atheism, the one that claims that there is absolutely no god, I agree. We have no way of knowing that for sure.
However, one needs some pragmatism... Should I hold a-force-ism to the same standard and entertain the notion that the Force does exist and a few individuals can tap into it and perform telekinesis, mind control and prescience? Is the claim that the Force does not exist as extraordinary as the claim that no god exists? Conceptually, what is the difference between these two negative claims?

[Succubus]

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.

[SteveII]

1. I'm glad you admit that the criteria is arbitrary. I and 90% of the world have no trouble in believing in the supernatural so do not dismiss evidence simply because it does not conform to a naturalistic worldview. 

2. Then you do not understand the definition of evidence. Don't be one of those people who say this is not evidence--it make you sound foolish. http://pediaa.com/difference-between-evi...and-proof/

3. You are conflating belief about how the world worked with how to interpret things they saw happen with their own eyes. Even first century people knew the difference between healed and not healed, alive and dead, water and wine.

1. Why use the word 'admit'? Are you under the impression that I'm, like, the spawn of satan who knows you're right but just doesn't want to say it? I'd suggest, if you want to achieve anything productive, change your conception of my motives. I am trying to understand your argument, not trying to punch you out. I would be thrilled to learn it is valid, but I'm not yet convinced.

Anyways, you're pulling out percentages. I just googled it, and an estimated 32% of people in the world are Christians. Hitler won 44% of the popular vote in Germany in 1933. So, by your argument that the proportion of people sheeping an argument increases its validity, Hitler's views are better than the Christian ideology? If 90% of a school class gets a test question wrong, is their empirically false answer now right by virtue of the number of misinformed students in the class?

2. You don't need to be condescending. I'm saying that nothing you quoted is actually evidence of anything. You just listed different formats for expressing information, not any actual evidence. If you have actual evidence of god, not just a bullet point list of random forms that evidence could be in, please provide.

3. Sorry, have you heard eyewitness testimony from these people? Have you seen the events that you believe in here? Are you really taking the stance that there could not possibly be a false account of something witnessed by goat herders 2000 years ago because humans are just so damn objective?

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.

---

If we go with "atheists make no claims" then as to the question of is there a God, we have some evidence that there is and on the other side, we have no evidence there is not (I'll even grant you by definition). My point was and is that if there can only be evidence on one side of the equation, the distinction or need of 'extraordinary evidence' is meaningless. Any evidence is sufficient to increase the probability, because there is no rebuttal evidence to overcome. 

I understand your point of view.... but the thing is, if we follow your logic, anything that imagination can conjure up will, by default, have some evidence to support it, while having no evidence to support its non-existence.
As one can easily see, this reasoning cannot be applied to anything, for it delivers no reliable conclusion.
And "anything" includes the answer to the question of is there a god.

For the same reason, I pointed out that strong atheism actually would be the extraordinary claim because it is doing so with no ordinary evidence.

For strong atheism, the one that claims that there is absolutely no god, I agree. We have no way of knowing that for sure.
However, one needs some pragmatism... Should I hold a-force-ism to the same standard and entertain the notion that the Force does exist and a few individuals can tap into it and perform telekinesis, mind control and prescience? Is the claim that the Force does not exist as extraordinary as the claim that no god exists? Conceptually, what is the difference between these two negative claims?

I am not saying you don't need evidence in the theism column--you do, the more the better. But ordinary evidence, like eyewitness testimony for example, can carry the same weight as in ordinary claims. I have never contended that such evidence is conclusive proof--only reasonable to rely on. 

In the same way, your force-ism needs to have ordinary evidence to support its claim of truth--the more the better. If there is an absence of even ordinary evidence, the claim is reasonable to reject.

[The Grand Nudger]

Theres no "ordinary" evidence for godman either, whatever the hell that would be, that's kind of contained in the statement; -no- evidence.  It's not like you have any eyewitness testimony, which would be extraordinary if it were eyewitness testimony of a deity - in and of itself.

You have this book, see? If you can't even be honest with yourself or us about that book..then what have you got? If, in the absence of evidence, even the argument you foist relies upon a lie from the outset...what's the point?

[Mister Agenda]

Neither theism nor atheism is a claim. They are brain states, the state of holding a belief that at least one god is really real, or the state of not holding that belief. Neither is a claim except about what you do or don't believe. In that sense, they are both real/existent.

Further conversation is about clarification and justification of those positions. You may be incorrect in holding one or the other position, but that you actually hold it is a trivial claim, barring evidence to the contrary.

Sorry, I just cringe a little when it see the 'isms' used as shorthand for existential claims.

In particular, 'atheism' is not 'the claim that 'God doesn't exist', which I see a lot.

---

Sigh. Bayesian probability tells us what is an extraordinary claim and we use it all the time except when we suspend it so we can believe something extraordinary that we're already convinced of.

It isn't reasonable to believe something consequential that hasn't defeated the null hypothesis. The process I used for evaluating whether ultrasonic pest repellants are effective can be used for most consequential decisions (and it saved me 14.99!).

---

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.

[LadyForCamus]

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.

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

[Harry Nevis]

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.

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.

---

Late to the party.... again!



(my bold)
I haven't read everything... so... feel free to crucify me if this has already been mentioned...

If this applies to other works of fiction, then maybe... maybe.... maybe... it's not a good measure of reality.
There is zero evidence for a-force-ism, so the Jedi are real.
There is zero evidence for a-faer-ism, so faeries exist.
There is zero evidence for a-warp-speed-ism, so Star Trek is an accurate portrayal of the future.
There is zero evidence for a-pokemon-ism, so there are definitely Japanese kids engaging in small pocket monster slavery for the purpose of battling other similar monsters.
There is zero evidence for a-zylon-ism, so the Earth most surely was the 13th colony.

That is nowhere near what that sentence says, implies, or means. I will try again.

1. Supernatural events are extraordinary claims because of difficulty obtaining evidence.
2. Ordinary claims are ones in which good evidence is possible to obtain.
3. There is no evidence for atheism 
4. There is some evidence for God (natural theology, revealed theology, the person of Jesus/events of his life, personal experience, properly basic belief in the supernatural in ~90% or the world's population).
5. If evidence for the existence of God can be obtained and cannot be obtained for his non-existence, then on the question of God's existence, at worst, the atheism is making the extraordinary claim, and at best the distinction of 'extraordinary' becomes meaningless.

There is as much evidence for atheism as for your god.  And, for the Nth time, atheism isn't a claim.

[SteveII]

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

[Harry Nevis]

People make claims, sure... Whether they're theists or atheists.
But you were saying that atheism is a claim. That it is a more extraordinary claim than theism, on account of the absence of evidence for it.
I'm saying theism is the claim and atheism is simply the position of not accepting the theism claim... Unlike many other possible a[claim]isms, this one developed a name throughout human history... Because the theism claim has had some success for a long time, most of which mankind was mostly ignorant of the world.
But now we know better, we have many tools at our disposal to probe the world and figure out how it works... Thus far, none of those tools has yielded anything resembling a god - not that they're looking for a god, but for something that is claimed to be so omni, it seems remarkably absent. And this renders the theism claim an extraordinary one .
Like a claim that any work of fiction is indeed real. The force, magic, the TARDIS, zylons, Klingons, etc... The claim that any of these is real is an extraordinary claim and would require some hefty evidence. While the default "I don't believe that claim" requires no evidence at all. You just need to go "nothing in the reality that humans agree upon support that such a claim is true".
And no, cosplayers, people talking about those fictional universes, speaking in languages from those universes, or even providing testimony that they're real is not credible evidence.

If we go with "atheists make no claims" then as to the question of is there a God, we have some evidence that there is and on the other side, we have no evidence there is not (I'll even grant you by definition). My point was and is that if there can only be evidence on one side of the equation, the distinction or need of 'extraordinary evidence' is meaningless. Any evidence is sufficient to increase the probability, because there is no rebuttal evidence to overcome. 

For the same reason, I pointed out that strong atheism actually would be the extraordinary claim because it is doing so with no ordinary evidence.

Is the fact that many people have prayed to god and not gotten a response evidence for atheism?  Or the fact that many things that were said to be caused by the acts of gods are now shown to be wrong?  Looks like there is evidence on both sides.

[SteveII]

---

That is nowhere near what that sentence says, implies, or means. I will try again.

1. Supernatural events are extraordinary claims because of difficulty obtaining evidence.
2. Ordinary claims are ones in which good evidence is possible to obtain.
3. There is no evidence for atheism 
4. There is some evidence for God (natural theology, revealed theology, the person of Jesus/events of his life, personal experience, properly basic belief in the supernatural in ~90% or the world's population).
5. If evidence for the existence of God can be obtained and cannot be obtained for his non-existence, then on the question of God's existence, at worst, the atheism is making the extraordinary claim, and at best the distinction of 'extraordinary' becomes meaningless.

There is as much evidence for atheism as for your god.  And, for the Nth time, atheism isn't a claim.

Already addressed this in a discussion with pocaracas later in the thread.