Do extrordinary events require extrordinary evidence?

[Betterave]

It is good to know that you are very dependable. Any excuse is a good excuse to evade a question, and mumble something about some irrelevancies.

LOL! Did I mumble somewhere? I think the transmission was quite clear - maybe there was a problem with the receiver? Do you think your question was relevant? If so, please explain its relevance.

In any case, as far as the actual topic of this thread goes, it seems that you and honestquestions have been convinced? I think you have certainly been given clear enough refutations of your views. So hopefully, after only a few iterations, we have *not *been forced to simply agree to disagree, as you predicted.

 

[Keeler]

LOL! Did I mumble somewhere? I think the transmission was quite clear - maybe there was a problem with the receiver? Do you think your question was relevant? If so, please explain its relevance.

Yes, the question was relevant, since it touched upon the subject of “miracles”. You could walk back on the pointers and read the whole exchange. I gave one example (and could give more) which shows that God’s alleged omnipotence does not include the ability to violate at least some laws of nature, which casts a doubt upon the concept of omnipotence.

In any case, as far as the actual topic of this thread goes, it seems that you and honestquestions have been convinced? I think you have certainly been given clear enough refutations of your views.

If that is what you think, then you should think again. Maybe then you would realize the error in your thought process.

But I will recap my stance. “Claims require evidence” - that is all I am saying. No need to talk about “ordinary” and “extraordinary” claims. The type of the claim of course is important, because the evidence required depends on the type.

1. Claims within an axiomatic system can be proven, if they are the logical corollary of the axioms.
2. Claims pertaining to the physical reality cannot be “proven”, they can be substantiated, or verified - or they can be falsified.
3. Claims about the past are tricky. If the claim is about an event, which left behind some physical evidence (like a volcanic eruption) then the evidence can be examined. If the claim did not leave physical evidence behind (like the resurrection), then we are left with testimonial evidence - which is a topic of its own.
4. Claims about some supernatural events fall into two categories, as well. If the event does not interact with the physical reality, then there is no way to verify or falsify the claim, but it is irrelevant anyhow. If, however the event interacted with the physical realm, then it is subject to usual verification/falsification criteria as the claims about physical existence in general.

 

[Betterave]

Yes, the question was relevant, since it touched upon the subject of “miracles”. You could walk back on the pointers and read the whole exchange. I gave one example (and could give more) which shows that God’s alleged omnipotence does not include the ability to violate at least some laws of nature, which casts a doubt upon the concept of omnipotence.

Your claim is questionable, but in any case, how does it cast doubt upon the concept of omnipotence?? And how is this relevant to ECREE? (It may well “touch upon” the general subject of miracles, but that doesn’t make it ipso facto relevant to the specific question here. )

If that is what you think, then you should think again. Maybe then you would realize the error in your thought process.

Bam! Nice one!

But I will recap my stance. “Claims require evidence” - that is all I am saying. No need to talk about “ordinary” and “extraordinary” claims. The type of the claim of course is important, because the evidence required depends on the type.

1. Claims within an axiomatic system can be proven, if they are the logical corollary of the axioms.
2. Claims pertaining to the physical reality cannot be “proven”, they can be substantiated, or verified - or they can be falsified.
3. Claims about the past are tricky. If the claim is about an event, which left behind some physical evidence (like a volcanic eruption) then the evidence can be examined. If the claim did not leave physical evidence behind (like the resurrection), then we are left with testimonial evidence - which is a topic of its own.
4. Claims about some supernatural events fall into two categories, as well. If the event does not interact with the physical reality, then there is no way to verify or falsify the claim, but it is irrelevant anyhow. If, however the event interacted with the physical realm, then it is subject to usual verification/falsification criteria as the claims about physical existence in general.

If you seriously think this is nothing but a recap of your position…

What you have written above is in no way a recap of your earlier (rather silly) position:

A miracle, by definition, is an event which cannot happen naturally. If it would still happen, it would happen IN nature, it would be observable for us. So there is something happening IN nature, which cannot happen in nature. That is simply a contradiction.

Please tell me you can see that?? If it is really true that all you are saying is that “Claims require evidence,” then you are not disagreeing with the OP, and you aren’t saying anything very interesting, right?