Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Cyberman]

We have photographs of Abraham Lincoln. We have documents written and signed by him. We have speeches written by him. We have contemporary accounts of his public appearances. We have not one jot or tittle of anything remotely similar for any godman character.

[Cyberman]

Regardless, there is a world of difference between Abraham Lincoln the man and Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter.

[Foxaèr]

Regardless, there is a world of difference between Abraham Lincoln the man and Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter.

The vampire hunter Lincoln was the real Lincoln, right?

[Cyberman]

Definitely. The total lack of evidence proves it.

[pocaracas]

Hey Steve.... so sorry for writing stuff that makes you write other stuff that gets everyone to jump on you... it's a gift I have

You forget that you already know who Angeline Jolie is. You've seen her. You know what to expect. You know she's a human being much like us; you know what her face looks like.
A photo of me having dinner with her is extraordinary in the sense of... what are the odds of that dinner happening? [1] What would be required for me to have such a photo?
Of all the photos that I have ever taken with my face on them... not a single one has Angelina. What are the odds that I'd show up with one that does?

I could go even more extraordinary by claiming I had dinner with a fairy called Tinker Bell. Now what would you consider evidence enough of my claim?
This claim is not only that I had dinner with Tink, but also that Tink is a fairy.


The bet is an interesting addition.
Not only because it changes your requirements to believe me, but also... why is there a bet in the first place?

Let's say you have a standing bet on your life (not some measly thousand dollars) that I didn't have dinner with the fairy Tinker Bell. At what sort of evidence would you accept that the terms of the bet have been met and give your life away?
I'm sure a mere photo would not be enough. Even a video could be edited, so you shouldn't take it as sufficient, even if some fairy magic was shown in the video.
What, short of producing Tinker Bell for you to examine directly and without any middlemen, would you consider enough evidence that Tinker Bell is a fairy and I had dinner with her?
(gotta tap that fairy tail!)

1. But you are just talking about probability assessments. Way back in the OP and on page 2, I mentioned that even an improbable event on one side can be more than counterbalanced by the even lower probability that you would have the evidence (a photo in this example) if the event had not happened (probability theory). There is nothing extraordinary about the photo. The photo is ordinary evidence because there are billions of photos taken each day. We did not demand nor did you offer more than ordinary proof for your dinner. 

It's just a dinner, after all. My point was about the increasing level of evidence required for you to believe a particular claim.

As it applies to my NT arguments, evidence that we would accept for any historical event should be accepted for the events that the gospels describe (applying the probability theory I mentioned above). A demand for better or more (what I take "extraordinary" in the title of this thread to mean) evidence has no power that can render what we do have as 'not evidence'. This last sentence is core to my argument. Therefore the phrase "Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence" is false. 

Yes.... but people here are disagreeing with you because you mangle the ordinary claim that a historical Jesus existed - clearly evidenced by the existence of the gospels and the legions of followers that his presence originated, as you've been telling us all along - with the extraordinary claim that Jesus was as described in those gospels.... that Jesus was the son of God.... that this God exists in the first place. And these claims must be evidenced in reverse order:
1. God exists.... don't forget to define what this "god" thing is... and teach everyone how mankind ever came to possess that information... as far as I can tell, there is no available mechanism for it, so you will have to also supply the mechanism by which we acquired that information.
2. Jesus is the son of God. So says Jesus in the story, huh? Quite self-serving...
3. Jesus was as described in the gospels.

Regarding Tinkerbell, I would not require just one piece of evidence. I would require at least 27.

27?! such a neat number...

Did hundreds of people see you both together

No, of course not. It was a cozy dinner for two at my place.

and act on that knowledge (like tell their family at the time)?

There was no one to tell anyone about it, so... no.

I would also have to consider some background evidence, where she was first mentioned?

Fairies show up in the folklore from the times of the Celts, if I'm not mistaken...
Tinker Bell in particular had a starring role in the famous otherworldly tale of Peter Pan, written by J. M. Barrie in 1904.

Who else might have encountered her?

Well, evidently, J.M. Barrie must have known her and Peter, or else he wouldn't have written down their stories.

Does she have any effect on her environment that we can add to the pile?

There is the extra tale that she is a "tinker-talent fairy". She makes things that other fairies use to bring about the Seasons on Earth.

How about considering if people intuitively believe in the possibility of Tinkerbells--I guess that might add to the pile of evidence too.

Oh, I so want Tinker Bell to be real

Lastly, did she leave any message that can be examined (did she speak of things that were practical, new, compelling, hopeful, insightful)?

Maybe she did... but that's not a part of the claim, is it?

I would consider all these things evidence. However, your analogy breaks down on betting my life on it. I would never have an inner experience/relationship with her that assured me she was real so would never rise to the level of betting my life on it.

Dude... you just have to believe!





See? they even make great music about how awesome it is to believe that these fairies exist!

[Amarok]

Lastly, did she leave any message that can be examined (did she speak of things that were practical, new, compelling, hopeful, insightful)?

Fictional beings can do all the above. And there is zero evidence jesus said anything .

hundreds of people see you both together

There is zero evidence that anyone saw jesus let alone hundreds

As it applies to my NT arguments, evidence that we would accept for any historical event should be accepted for the events that the gospels describe (applying the probability theory I mentioned above). A demand for better or more (what I take "extraordinary" in the title of this thread to mean) evidence has no power that can render what we do have as 'not evidence'. This last sentence is core to my argument. Therefore the phrase "Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence" is false.

Then you have an F'ed up understanding of probability theory . And no the NT flunks historical methods by yards .

Who else might have encountered her?

Anyone who has encountered fairies . And once again the question can be asked of jesus


How about considering if people intuitively believe in the possibility of Tinkerbells--I guess that might add to the pile of evidence too.

What people intuitively as possible is neither her nor there .

I would consider all these things evidence. However, your analogy breaks down on betting my life on it. I would never have an inner experience/relationship with her that assured me she was real so would never rise to the level of betting my life on it.

What you bet your life on is irrelevant . Yeah that last sentence is how any of treat your god claims . So thanks for stating a lot I meaningless derp . That only demonstrates his argument .

[Neo-Scholastic]

We have photographs of Abraham Lincoln. We have documents written and signed by him. We have speeches written by him. We have contemporary accounts of his public appearances. We have not one jot or tittle of anything remotely similar for any godman character.

Still silence on Cato the Elder, Socrates, and Alexander the Great? We have less evidence that any of these existed than for Jesus of Nazareth. If the issue is simply one of having sufficient and reasonably accurate accounts about people from the ancient world, then Jesus of Nazareth stands out as one of the more extensively documented.

Now admittedly, no miraculous claims are being made with respect to these other historical figures. So what? The point SteveII, RoadRunner79, and I are making is that skeptics have abandoned objectivity by ruling out the possibility of supernatural events in advance. In fact, they say that the mere mention of miraculous events in the accounts is proof that the accounts of miracles are false. That move is a basic logical fallacy called "Begging the Question."

[Mister Agenda]

We have photographs of Abraham Lincoln. We have documents written and signed by him. We have speeches written by him. We have contemporary accounts of his public appearances. We have not one jot or tittle of anything remotely similar for any godman character.

Still silence on Cato the Elder, Socrates, and Alexander the Great? We have less evidence that any of these existed than for Jesus of Nazareth. If the issue is simply one of having sufficient and reasonably accurate accounts about people from the ancient world, then Jesus of Nazareth stands out as one of the more extensively documented.

Maybe they didn't really exist. If they didn't, so what? It's not like we can't be wrong about whether they were real people.

---

Now admittedly, no miraculous claims are being made with respect to these other historical figures. So what? The point SteveII, RoadRunner79, and I are making is that  skeptics have abandoned objectivity by ruling out the possibility of supernatural events in advance. In fact, they say that the mere mention of miraculous events in the accounts is proof that the accounts of miracles are false. That move is a basic logical fallacy called "Begging the Question."

The what is that miracles haven't been established as a possibility yet. That someone existed and that they violated the known laws of biology and physics are separate claims. The former might be plausible under Bayesian probability, the latter is inherently less plausible until the reality of truly miraculous events (requiring supernatural causation) is shown to be possible.

Prove one miracle, just one, and the other miracle claims will become at least slightly more plausible. It isn't begging the question to observe that a claim describes events not known to be possible.

[KevinM1]

We have photographs of Abraham Lincoln. We have documents written and signed by him. We have speeches written by him. We have contemporary accounts of his public appearances. We have not one jot or tittle of anything remotely similar for any godman character.

Still silence on Cato the Elder, Socrates, and Alexander the Great? We have less evidence that any of these existed than for Jesus of Nazareth. If the issue is simply one of having sufficient and reasonably accurate accounts about people from the ancient world, then Jesus of Nazareth stands out as one of the more extensively documented.

Now admittedly, no miraculous claims are being made with respect to these other historical figures. So what? The point SteveII, RoadRunner79, and I are making is that skeptics have abandoned objectivity by ruling out the possibility of supernatural events in advance. In fact, they say that the mere mention of miraculous events in the accounts is proof that the accounts of miracles are false. That move is a basic logical fallacy called "Begging the Question."

Actually, we say that claims of miracles aren't proof of them. And that because of various things (the fact that most religions make miraculous claims, the fact that the burden of proof hasn't been met for any of them, etc.) there's no compelling reason to consider them. Provide credible evidence that your protagonist committed acts that don't comport with known reality, and we'll consider it. Until then, please stop whining about how we're big dummies for not playing along with what has been, due to a lack of evidence, a fantasy.

Keep in mind: the burden of proof regarding the supernatural is pretty high. Not only do you need to prove that the event happened, you need to prove that it couldn't have happened due to a natural process. Given that absolutely nothing in the course of human history has met that burden, forgive us if we remain skeptical with your particular effort. But, by all means, try.

[Cyberman]

It's why I drew the distinction between Honest Abe the man and Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter. Or the Lincoln who met Captain Kirk. What is it about the latter characters, taken at face value, that allows us to dismiss their historical existence with such certainty?