Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Astonished]

I don't know about the others but I'm still waiting to see all those defeaters I keep hearing about. I don't think I've ever seen a serious objection to most Necessary Being demonstrations (here and supplemented  here) or the Argument from Logic (here.)

Well, as someone who doesn't see the universe as particularly necessary (other than that I'd have no place to keep my stuff in the absence of same), the Necessary Being argument is a non-starter for me.

Argument from Logic seems to start out with some interesting premises, but I had a "Wait, what?" moment at point #8, "The Laws of Logic are Divine Thoughts."  At that point the argument seems to have stuck its tail in its mouth like an ouroboros.  It's also merely (yes, I said "merely") a philosophical argument, suggesting that there might be a divine thinker, but does not actually demonstrate that there is a divine thinker.

Does it make any stabs at inserting 'necessary' agency into the argument from 'logic'? Ah, fuck it. Guess I'll have to take a look now, but if I haven't seen anyone address this on youtube, I'm expecting it to be EXCEEDINGLY stupid as an argument.

Edit: Fuck me, they really went there. Okay, they lost me at point 5. If you can't demonstrate that these things are necessary, any more than you can demonstrate anything else, physical or not, is necessary, you argument falls apart then and there. Never mind taking it to the point where it's part of the mind of a creating intelligence. Okay, so this WAS as exceedingly fucking stupid an argument as I would expect for something not even to be worth anyone's time on youtube. Neociopathic, I would say I expected better from you but that's literally impossible. So what I'll say is, just stop trying.

[Amarok]

The ontological argument has been debunk six ways from sunday . God is not in anyway necessary as for logic no god is needed for it nor to use it .

[Mister Agenda]

Aren't you really just arguing for comfort in the face of death?  Think I'll wing it without a security blanket.  I'm sure I'm not worried about any awkward posthumous interview at the pearly gates.  So really it just seems to be about spinning our mortality in a candy-land direction.

That's not the issue. Deciding if and when it is permissible to end a human life, what it means to be human, and how to make and live in a just society has very little do with what someone believes about the afterlife. Whether we acknowledge it or not, everyone has a philosophical world view.

How did we get from 'we shouldn't claim to know things that we don't' to the idea that any of us are saying that 'we don't or shouldn't have a philosophical world view'?

---

I have to wonder, when confronting fears and apprehensions about how their life will be affected by bring the child to term or caring for the severely disabled, and if people truly considered what it means to be human, they would make much different choices in such dire circumstances. These are not the only issues. We could just as easily be talking about any number of issues; I just went for the low-hanging fruit.

I have to wonder how sincere people are in their desire to reduce abortions with legal restrictions when the evidence says that ready access to birth control, sex education, and legal abortions is highly correlated with a lower abortion rate and lower maternal death rate; while banning abortions is mainly correlated with a high rate of illegal abortions and a higher maternal death rate.

---

Laws and prisons and good upbringing are hardly predicate on god, but they sure do end up housing a hell of alot of christers.......

It was the conviction of Quakers that changed our thinking about prison, from a place of punishment to forced penitence. That is where the word penitentiary came from.

Yet, you're not a Quaker yourself. What's the deal with people of other denominations taking credit for the decency and activism of Quakers yet not wanting to be Quakers?

---

-add that to the pile of "atheist tendencies"...... as related by you, right up there with how they always steal your cookies.

I;ve gotta ask, if you find that people are often implying or suggesting that you're crazy....at what point do you wonder whether or not it might be you, rather than them?  How does the joke go?  First time a guy calls you a horse you hit him in the mouth.  Third time, you look into purchasing a saddle?

I don't pay much attention, when they attack straw men, and try to speak for me or make false assumptions about motives

I can't remember anyone since my step-father quicker to make false assumptions about my motives than you.

---

Are quakers gods?  No, they are not.  So, it was the ideas of men that changed our ideas of prison.   OFC, the quakers aren't around any more, and we continue to refine our model.  Penitentiaries may soon become relics, as the quakers became relics...on account of being well meaning but mistaken adventures in correction.  Kind of like the quakers, when you think about it.

What was the point of that?

There are still Quakers. My brother in law is one. The US would be a better place if there were more, I think.

Maybe you should think about joining them.

---

I suspect the number of convicted murderers who are xtian probably approaches 100% if/when they come up for parole.

It's about 65.1% on intake if you count Catholics and Protestants together.

[Amarok]

I have to wonder, when confronting fears and apprehensions about how their life will be affected by bring the child to term or caring for the severely disabled, and if people truly considered what it means to be human, they would make much different choices in such dire circumstances. These are not the only issues. We could just as easily be talking about any number of issues; I just went for the low-hanging fruit.

Short answer nope

It was the conviction of Quakers that changed our thinking about prison, from a place of punishment to forced penitence. That is where the word penitentiary came from.

Yup and as Kam said . That was in no was predicated on magic fairy think

[RoadRunner79]

An atheist's tendency in this situation; I have observed, is to deny, and claim the observer as mistaken, crazy or something similar (or if unable to deny, then well there must be a naturalistic cause (science will figure it out someday).  Here too, I think that often, it may be better to just say I don't know.  Not that there can't be reasons for these answers, but they are a claim that needs to be supported.

I agree with much of your post, but disagree with this. Firstly, atheists aren't robots who all share the same programming, and I know plenty who are dead-certain that UFOs are piloted by beings from other worlds, or that humans have mental powers such as ESP or PK or whatever.

Secondly, the fact is that mistakes of observation and forms of insanity which impart hallucinations are facts. They happen regularly, daily. The idea that those explanations are less likely than that of an all-powerful invisible guy in heaven is hogwash, and the rational mind knows this.

To your first point:  I agree - I'm not trying to lump all atheist together.  I hope that others are affording theist the same consideration.

To your Second Point:   I agree, we can make mistakes of observation or memory, but I think there is a problem if you are explaining things away in this manner, just because it conflicts with your worldview.  These types of mistakes have limits, and I think the evaluation of them are going to depend on the details.    Concerning insanity and hallucinations.   First how are you determining your probability for God?  Additionally... without other reasons what do you think that the likelihood of a normally healthy person who doesn't have a history of hallucinations or similar defects, just happens to have one, right when it conflicts with your world view.  It doesn't seem quite right, to be able to assume on this alone (also who decides what worldview we use).  Now normally I would say that we can know reality through others confirming that what we see or experience is true.  That if others are seeing something that no one else does, then it is reasonable to reduce the explanation down to the common factor.  However this requires others to be present at the time, and give their report of what was not seen. I may ahve to give this a little more thought and do some research.  I don't really understand the extents of this type of mental illness and it's limits.

[Whateverist]

It was the conviction of Quakers that changed our thinking about prison, from a place of punishment to forced penitence. That is where the word penitentiary came from.

Yet, you're not a Quaker yourself. What's the deal with people of other denominations taking credit for the decency and activism of Quakers yet not wanting to be Quakers?

The assumption that the behavior you get from people who are raised in or gravitate toward being a Quaker is what we can expect from herding everyone to do the same is highly questionable.

[Thumpalumpacus]

To your Second Point:   I agree, we can make mistakes of observation or memory, but I think there is a problem if you are explaining things away in this manner, just because it conflicts with your worldview.  These types of mistakes have limits, and I think the evaluation of them are going to depend on the details.    Concerning insanity and hallucinations.   First how are you determining your probability for God?

No. First, why is "god" a better answer than "I don't know"? You cannot demonstrate that any god exists. I am not obliged to consider that a reasonable answer until such a demonstration occurs. And in the meantime, I'll continue to support with my words, taxes, and donations, scientific efforts to arrive at answers. It's not that I don't think it can be god; it's that that possibility is so remote as to be meaningless. Let's face it: believers cannot even agree on the nature of this god they bandy about as an "explanation". When you say "goddidit", I'm asking "God who? Which god?"

I'm all ears, but the main reason why I reject your god, and those of others, as explanations, is that I have so often seen those explanations fail in ridiculously spectacular fashion. Do you believe Thor makes thunder? Why or why not? When you know the answer to that question for yourself, you will understand my answer to your question: evidence, or lack thereof.

Additionally... without other reasons what do you think that the likelihood of a normally healthy person who doesn't have a history of hallucinations or similar defects, just happens to have one, right when it conflicts with your world view.

I dunno. Why don't you tell me how often it happens?

It doesn't seem quite right, to be able to assume on this alone (also who decides what worldview we use).  Now normally I would say that we can know reality through others confirming that what we see or experience  is true.  That if others are seeing something that no one else does, then it is reasonable to reduce the explanation down to the common factor.  However this requires others to be present at the time, and give their report of what was not seen. I may ahve to give this a little more thought and do some research.  I don't really understand the extents of this type of mental illness and it's limits.

If someone says they see a guy walking on water and no one was there to see it, and the camera on his phone just mysteriously would not work, I am entitled to think he's probably not delivering an accurate representation of reality. As Hitchens put it, "that which may be advanced without evidence may be dismissed without evidence."

Put shortly, I'm under no obligation to disprove the ridiculous. If you want me to believe the ridiculous, you'd better have ridiculously good evidence.

[Amarok]

Additionally... without other reasons what do you think that the likelihood of a normally healthy person who doesn't have a history of hallucinations or similar defects, just happens to have one, right when it conflicts with your world view.

Then you don't understand hallucination in a religious context . And this has dick all to do with explaining away or worldviews . Nor does a hallucination require mental illness or your brain to be defective .

These types of mistakes have limits, and I think the evaluation of them are going to depend on the details

Nope hallucination can be highly detailed . So it won't be determined that way.

without other reasons what do you think that the likelihood of a normally healthy person who doesn't have a history of hallucinations or similar defects, just happens to have one, right when it conflicts with your world view

High wiether they have a history or not. Again you don't need to be mentally ill to have hallucinations . And this has nothing to do with worldviews it has to do with  research into religious  psychology .

  I don't really understand the extents of this type of mental illness and it's limits.

Then stop talking

 I agree, we can make mistakes of observation or memory, but I think there is a problem if you are explaining things away in this manner, just because it conflicts with your worldview

Its not explaining things away and it has nothing to do with worldviews . Get that through your head.

---

Additionally... without other reasons what do you think that the likelihood of a normally healthy person who doesn't have a history of hallucinations or similar defects, just happens to have one, right when it conflicts with your world view.

Then you don't understand hallucination in a religious context . And this has dick all to do with explaining away or worldviews . Nor does a hallucination require mental illness or your brain to be defective .

These types of mistakes have limits, and I think the evaluation of them are going to depend on the details

Nope hallucination can be highly detailed . So it won't be determined that way.

without other reasons what do you think that the likelihood of a normally healthy person who doesn't have a history of hallucinations or similar defects, just happens to have one, right when it conflicts with your world view

High wiether they have a history or not. Again you don't need to be mentally ill to have hallucinations . And this has nothing to do with worldviews it has to do with  research into religious  psychology .

  I don't really understand the extents of this type of mental illness and it's limits.

Then stop talking

 I agree, we can make mistakes of observation or memory, but I think there is a problem if you are explaining things away in this manner, just because it conflicts with your worldview

Its not explaining things away and it has nothing to do with worldviews . Get that through your head.

In fact, normals with a high propensity for hallucination have been identified as schizotypal, meaning they hallucinate nearly as easily as schizophrenics do but are not so prone to it as to be disabled. A schizotypal is ‘a relatively well-adjusted person who is functional despite, and in some cases even because of, his or her anomalous perceptual experiences’.[scholarship cited] Hallucination in schizotypals in fact has been shown to reduce their anxiety and thus has a positive personal function. In modern cultures a prevalent hostile attitude toward hallucinatory behavior still often drives schizotypals to become loners (because they are characterized as weirdos or insane and there is no recognized place for them), but in cultures that embrace hallucinators we see the opposite. For example, where we find cults that socially integrate schizotypals or even elevate them to positions of leadership, we find that schizotypals begin to congregate and socialize.[scholarship cited] In fact, culture determines how easily and frequently even normals will hallucinate, as well as how accepted and revered schizotypals will be.[scholarship cited] Modern ‘first world’ cultures are actually profoundly atypical among world cultures in stigmatizing and suppressing hallucinatory tendencies.[scholarship cited] As scientific observers have concluded, ‘the folk theory of visions and voices adopted by a culture may be important in determining whether a hallucination is viewed as veridical or as evidence of insanity’, which in turn greatly affects the commonality and acceptance of hallucination within a population.

---

Sorry double post

[Ravenshire]

Fixed that for you.

Chad, what you (and most of the other faithers who come here) just don't get is that we don't give a shit about your religious arguments. If we're arguing them at all, for the most part it's out of boredom, wanting to play whack-a-mole, whatever... Most of of come from religious households, grew up in religious communities and quite likely still live in religious communities. The arguments and evidence were unconvincing then and remain unconvincing now, especially considering they haven't changed.

Then don't blame us if  boredom, apathy, or whatever you want to call that makes many use bad and lazy arguements, lead to a poor conclusions about your intelligence. 

Constantly declaring how smart one is, while avoiding discussion or using ad arguments doesn't help much either. I go by what I see.

You don't get it either. We've got the evidence, we don't need to make shit up and call it an argument.

[Amarok]

Then don't blame us if  boredom, apathy, or whatever you want to call that makes many use bad and lazy arguements, lead to a poor conclusions about your intelligence. 

Constantly declaring how smart one is, while avoiding discussion or using ad arguments doesn't help much either. I go by what I see.

You don't get it either. We've got the evidence, we don't need to make shit up and call it an argument.

Preach it

He does not get it and likely never will .