Do extrordinary events require extrordinary evidence?

[danserr]

Okay, here is the evidence that would prove that cold climates can exist: Place our hypothetical man in a cold climate. Then he would know that cold climates exist.

But surely that is unreasonable. Think of the example I mention above; wouldn’t it be rational for him to believe in the existence of a cold climate simply on some traveler’s testimony?

Either way, saying that “such-and-such” a person has accepted X does not mean that X is true. Lots of people are Hindus, does that make Hinduism true?

Come on, that’s not a very good reply. I am just saying that it is the professional opinion of most historians who write on the subject that those three issues can be established as historical facts on the basis of the evidence. Gerd Luddenman is certainly a skeptic, a very famous German scholar; so I do not know where you are pulling that he is a Christian from.

OK, so you are asking me to assume we have evidence that the tomb was found empty and that the apostles saw the risen Jesus. The only reports we have of these are the documents written decades later, plenty of time for a story to grow in the telling especially since the documents were written for the express purpose of gaining adherents, but I’ll move on. An empty tomb could have any number of explanations including graverobbers, acolytes of Jesus rescuing his body to bury him elsewhere, or a rock not placed particularly well and rolling down a slope. A vision of Jesus could be explained by wishful thinking, dreaming or that his followers claimed they saw him in order to gain followers.

You recite the standard line about the stories being late, we will discuss this next weekend, I don’t have time to follow a thread during the week. But as a brief point, accounts by ancient authors are often written even later than the gospels were from the events (like Tacitus) but historians regularly use them as reliable sources of info. Now those explanations you give are very weak. Grave robbery would explain one of those facts (the empty tomb), but not the other two. Dreams would have been called dreams or visions, but not appearances of a risen Christ.
But I think for the purposes of this thread, you seem willing to agree the we can consider the evidence and that it is not enough to just recite “extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence” as a way to avoid consideration of the evidence. If so, let’s save this discussion on the evidence for the Ress. and the best explanation of it. Threads can get derailed easily, so I want to stay on topic and just discuss the principle of “EEREE.”

 

[kaid100]

But surely that is unreasonable. Think of the example I mention above; wouldn’t it be rational for him to believe in the existence of a cold climate simply on some traveler’s testimony?

As you and I both know that cold climates exist, it seems irrational not to believe in them. You asked for an example of evidence in this scenario and I gave one: put him in a cold climate.

Come on, that’s not a very good reply. I am just saying that it is the professional opinion of most historians who write on the subject that those three issues can be established as historical facts on the basis of the evidence. Gerd Luddenman is certainly a skeptic, a very famous German scholar; so I do not know where you are pulling that he is a Christian from.

Yes, that’s not a good reply because you removed all but the last sentence. And you do know where I’m pulling that he is a Christian from, because I told you where in the part you removed.

You recite the standard line about the stories being late, we will discuss this next weekend, I don’t have time to follow a thread during the week. But as a brief point, accounts by ancient authors are often written even later than the gospels were from the events (like Tacitus) but historians regularly use them as reliable sources of info. Now those explanations you give are very weak. Grave robbery would explain one of those facts (the empty tomb), but not the other two. Dreams would have been called dreams or visions, but not appearances of a risen Christ.
But I think for the purposes of this thread, you seem willing to agree the we can consider the evidence and that it is not enough to just recite “extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence” as a way to avoid consideration of the evidence. If so, let’s save this discussion on the evidence for the Ress. and the best explanation of it. Threads can get derailed easily, so I want to stay on topic and just discuss the principle of “EEREE.”

Muslim historians use the Koran as a reliable source of info just as Christian historians use the Bible as such. You’ll forgive a skeptic for not taking either on trust. If you want to discuss the principle of ECREE regarding Jesus rising without discussing the whether there is sufficient evidence for the resurrection, I don’t really see where we can go from here. I’m signing off on this thread.

 

[danserr]

As you and I both know that cold climates exist, it seems irrational not to believe in them. You asked for an example of evidence in this scenario and I gave one: put him in a cold climate.

My point, which you have not disputed, is that he does not require extraordinary evidence to believe something that contradicts his previous experience.

Yes, that’s not a good reply because you removed all but the last sentence. And you do know where I’m pulling that he is a Christian from, because I told you where in the part you removed.

I didn’t quote your whole thing because I am trying to save space. I don’t know why you insist on trying to claim Ludemann is a Christian. The website you went to is not Ludeman’s but one run by infidels.org. had you read the whole page, you would have found the following quote: “…controversy surrounding biblical scholar and George-August University faculty member Gerd Luedemann who, after announcing his nonbelief publicly last year…”
A second example from the wikkipedia page on him: “Lüdemann stated that his studies convinced him that his previous Christian faith, based as it was on Biblical Studies, had become impossible.”

There is no doubt that he is a skeptic, and I am disappointed that you keep trying to assert that he is. When he talked about “my church” he meant "my former Church.

Muslim historians use the Koran as a reliable source of info just as Christian historians use the Bible as such. You’ll forgive a skeptic for not taking either on trust. If you want to discuss the principle of ECREE regarding Jesus rising without discussing the whether there is sufficient evidence for the resurrection, I don’t really see where we can go from here.

You insist on pretending that I am asking you to believe the gospels on trust. I do not know what, since I have said no such thing. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the popular skeptical slogan “extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence.” I have suggested a serious problem with this. You have not disputed it. Thus far, it seems reasonable that we can consider evidence for Jesus’ Resurrection and not be hindered by skeptical claims like this one. I will of course be delighted to discuss the Resurrection next weekend.

 

[danserr]

Thanks to everyone who replied. I’ll keep following the thread, but won’t have as much time to post during the week, though I’ll still try to from time to time. Next week hopefully I can start a thread where we actually go over some evidence for the resurrection.
best,
danserr

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…I think it’s extraordinary and I won’t be believing you until you demonstrate it to me…

Finally the truth comes out. A claim is only extraordinary if you say so. The evidence is only extraordinary if you say so…

 

[jonfawkes]

youtube.com/watch?v=5M9pphsSLPs

I watched the video - missed it the fist time

He claims that because the lottery has extraordinary odds of winning, any reporting of a winner is extraordinary - which is just plain stupid. The event of a lottery drawing happens daily, weekly etc. The event of the lottery drawing is not extraordinary, the chance of winning is extra ordinary. Different things. Bad logic.

 

[Keeler]

Finally the truth comes out. A claim is only extraordinary if you say so. The evidence is only extraordinary if you say so…

Which part of “extraordinary” can’t you understand?

 

[tonyrey]

“Extraordinary” is a designation of what the speaker considers – as the word implies – “out of the ordinary.” It simply means that if I hear a claim that sounds to me as if it’s outside of my everyday, ordinary understanding of the way the world works, then I’m going to need evidence that confirms it before I accept it. I won’t just accept it or grant it like I would ordinary claims.

Do you think the fact that the universe exists is extraordinary?

 

[honestquestions]

I watched the video - missed it the fist time

He claims that because the lottery has extraordinary odds of winning, any reporting of a winner is extraordinary - which is just plain stupid. The event of a lottery drawing happens daily, weekly etc. The event of the lottery drawing is not extraordinary, the chance of winning is extra ordinary. Different things. Bad logic.

We have a winner! Finally, someone who is primarily interested in sound arguments first, rather than “winning.” A Catholic who is honest. Bravo.

 

[honestquestions]

Do you think the fact that the universe exists is extraordinary?

In one sense yes, and we have a lot of extraordinary evidence to support that it exists. In another sense no, because it doesn’t interfere with everything that is known to man. (But then you run into the problem of not understanding it fully, which does again make it seem extraordinary). Good deep question, but I think me might be worrying too much on semantics.

I thought the earlier response I gave was pretty good in that something requires extraordinary evidence if the claim is known to go against all known massive amounts of evidence, in which case we would then classify the claim as extraordinary.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Do you think the fact that the universe exists is extraordinary?

Of course not, I experience the existence of the universe in my everyday life.

 

[honestquestions]

But I don’t require such evidence to believe that that number was really the number drawn. (And at any rate, I am not sure that the evidence you present as extraordinary really is extraordinary. A lottery ticket doesn’t seem like extraordinary evidence.)

I think you got lost in all of the responses and the initial issue. Congratulations, you are agreeing with me. I do not think a winning lottery ticket is extraordinary because there are many every day. But I was essentially taking your side that if from your perspective it seemed extraordinary, you will still have your evidence.

The issue is that the number called on the evening news was extraordinarily improbable.

Wrong. Because you are trying to make your point no matter what actual number comes up, and just assume that it is YOUR winning ticket. Again, this goes back to what I said earlier regarding the perception. You can’t make this argument because you are always assuming it’s your winning ticket, when in reality the lottery numbers have no feelings and no matter what comes up there is a decent chance that someone somewhere will win. There are winners daily which is not extraordinary. A winning lottery number is a very ordinary thing. On the other hand, how many people live again after being dead for three days?

The point is that you cannot proportion your belief in terms of the probability of the evidence. Why? Because that number being called is incredibly improbable; now, even if the news media is 99.99%% reliable, this probability is still dwarfed by the extraordinary improbability that that number should be called.

If you want to only play that number once for each drawing, and you do get an improbable match because that is the only combination that would declare you a winner, then from your perspective only it would be extraordinary, and you would have the extraordinary evidence of the recorded purchase and video surveillance just as the normal times you had the countless amounts of recorded purchases and video surveillance of the losing tickets.

Anyone want to agree with me here that what I have said is logically sound? It seems very obvious now that I have clearly demonstrated it - I just see no way around it. Agree/Disagree?

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

I watched the video - missed it the fist time

He claims that because the lottery has extraordinary odds of winning, any reporting of a winner is extraordinary - which is just plain stupid. The event of a lottery drawing happens daily, weekly etc. The event of the lottery drawing is not extraordinary, the chance of winning is extra ordinary. Different things. Bad logic.

People win the lottery all the time. Winning is not “extraordinary” because we hear about it all the time. We know it happens, it is part of our understanding of how the lottery works. Is it unlikely you or your friends will win? Of course. Is it extraordinary? No.

Moreover, if you do win, the evidence you have is very good. You may compare your numbers to the winning numbers. You understand that winning is unlikely, so you will probably compare your numbers to the winning numbers more than once. You might even ask a friend to verify. Once you have done this, you have created strong enough evidence to believe the unlikely (not extraordinary) outcome.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Wrong. Because you are trying to make your point no matter what actual number comes up, and just assume that it is YOUR winning ticket. Again, this goes back to what I said earlier regarding the perception. You can’t make this argument because you are always assuming it’s your winning ticket, when in reality the lottery numbers have no feelings and no matter what comes up there is a decent chance that someone somewhere will win. There are winners daily which is not extraordinary. A winning lottery number is a very ordinary thing. On the other hand, how many people live again after being dead for three days?

Perhaps the video guy should have asked this question: what is the probability of them broadcasting the wrong number? That is what he was getting at with his “state of the evidence if the event didn’t happen” bit.

He has something of a point, but is not really addressing Hume. We know that the lotto numbers are broadcast every night, and that they are usually right. Therefore, claiming they got them wrong would be an extraordinary claim.

He then says “well how else would you explain empty tomb, etc” if not for the resurrection? Simple, the disciples decided to conspire together and create a story that would allow them to become hugely influential religious leaders. That is an ordinary claim, we understand people do frequently lie to obtain positions of authority, it does not require any revision of our knowledge about life and death.

 

[honestquestions]

But consider that man in the hot climate who was told by travelers that water can exist in a solid state. For the entire history that he knew of, this is demonstrably false. It contradicts all his past experience and was in direct clash with everything he knew. So by the principle of “extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence,” he would have to disbelieve the travelers, even if they were reliable, informed people, unless he had extraordinary evidence. But this seems unreasonable.

Correct, the man should dismiss their claims unless the travelers could provide him with the extraordinary (from his perspective) evidence. This is interesting because of course you and I both know it is true, but imagine if you gave the same storyline again but with an infinite number of claims that we could insert into the story that both you and I at this time actually do not know if they are true. Is it still unreasonable to accept their claims? The travelers should show the man the demonstrable evidence, and if they do not have a device to make an internal atmosphere of a cold state so that water can freeze, then they are left no choice but to bring him to the cold climate to show him that water can freeze, if he is interested enough in leaving his known “world.”

Testimony to an event cannot be refuted by prior experiences, or else we could never believe anything outside of our present experience.

We can believe testimony from a reputable source if it is consistent with the laws of nature that we have known to exist literally everywhere. The moment it contradicts all known evidence is when require the evidence outside all known evidence. So to trump known evidence, what we require must be extraordinary. By your standards, we should believe everything someone says in a testimony (in which case many testimonies would soon begin to clash with one another and we would have no standards to determine which one(s) are true.

And how can we call the Resurrection contrary to our experience? Less said that miracles are different events from experience in general, but not *contradictory *events.

Because rising from the dead after three days is contrary to our experience. Less’s definition then does not apply to Jesus rising from the dead because rising from the dead is a contradictory event.

For example, the contradiction to “Jesus rose from the dead” is “Jesus did not rise from the dead.” For past experience to contradict the miracle of the resurrection then “Jesus did not rise” would have to be shown to be true.

Wrong. I do not have prove a negative. If I told you that I have a magical octopus in my house, you have to believe it because you cannot disprove it? One must always state reasons to believe in something, and one can always reject a claim based on a lack of evidence. You do not have to reject a claim only by disproving it. Can you disprove that I have an octopus in my house that you must pray to and if not you will go to hell? Then you must believe and pray to it! See how this is illogical?

But"Jesus rose from the dead," is not contradicted by experience in general that dead men do not rise because Christianity agrees with this.

Christianity agrees with it because it’s in the bible and the bible is true because the bible says it is true… (Circular reasoning).

-Similarly, Paley said that an narrative of fact can only be found contradictory to experience “if we, being at the time and place in question, observe that the alleged event did not in fact take place.”

I and 99% of others can see how Paley was wrong. The divine purple leprechaun is walking the streets of NYC right now. According to Paley, this is not contradictory to experience because we are not in NYC right now to witness that the divine purple leprechaun is not actually walking the streets.

 

[StrawberryJam]

The story of Satan is a myth which doesn’t have to be taken word for word. It may well be that although he was in the spiritual world he was not in the full presence of God. The same is likely to be true of human beings who reject God after they die because their defects prevent them from seeing His full glory.

Citations please.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Which part of “extraordinary” can’t you understand?

1. How anyone knows that something is “extraordinary”. If one doesn’t know everything that is ordinary, then it is meaningless to claim that something is “extraordinary”. One may suppose that 5 LB diamonds are extraordinary. Then again, they may litter the ground on Venus. Clearly, no one making the claim that something is extraordinary, really has any idea if the claim is true or not.
2. Any claim that “extraordinary” in the subjective sense, such as “its extraordinary to me” is a sufficient basis to ask another to provide objective “extraordinary” evidence. If its all in your head, keep it there.
3. The 2 different uses of the word “extraordinary”. To me it looks like the statement is “unbelievable claims require unbelievable evidence”. If one wants extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, then he is asking for evidence as unbelievable as the claim. Which seems nonsensical to me.
4. If one has no way of knowing what constitutes an “extraordinary claim”, then it seems that one would not have a way of knowing what constitutes “extraordinary evidence”.

 

[StrawberryJam]

1. How anyone knows that something is “extraordinary”. If one doesn’t know everything that is ordinary, then it is meaningless to claim that something is “extraordinary”. One may suppose that 5 LB diamonds are extraordinary. Then again, they may litter the ground on Venus. Clearly, no one making the claim that something is extraordinary, really has any idea if the claim is true or not.
2. Any claim that “extraordinary” in the subjective sense, such as “its extraordinary to me” is a sufficient basis to ask another to provide objective “extraordinary” evidence. If its all in your head, keep it there.
3. The 2 different uses of the word “extraordinary”. To me it looks like the statement is “unbelievable claims require unbelievable evidence”. If one wants extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, then he is asking for evidence as unbelievable as the claim. Which seems nonsensical to me.
4. If one has no way of knowing what constitutes an “extraordinary claim”, then it seems that one would not have a way of knowing what constitutes “extraordinary evidence”.

Please re-think what you wrote here. I advise strongly that you do not take this attitude about Carl Sagan.

 

[honestquestions]

1. How anyone knows that something is “extraordinary”.

Please read more of the thread - everything has already been answered.

If one doesn’t know everything that is ordinary, then it is meaningless to claim that something is “extraordinary”.

We don’t have to know everything that is ordinary. Remember, these words give us meaning and understanding to a discussion. When someone dies, they are dead (yes I know… a few examples of CPR saving someone who was thought to be medically dead - but you know what I mean). That’s how it’s always been in recorded history. When a claim is made that someone died, but came alive again three days later, in terms of relevant discussion to give meaning, the term extraordinary is used because it is not ordinary with what we do know and have records of.

What standards of evidence do you propose may I ask? Are testimonies good enough evidence to believe that someone could die and come back to life again three days?

 

[jonfawkes]

1. The 2 different uses of the word “extraordinary”. To me it looks like the statement is “unbelievable claims require unbelievable evidence”. If one wants extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, then he is asking for evidence as unbelievable as the claim. Which seems nonsensical to me.

If I claim that I have a leprechaun living in my house which is an extraordinary claim, and was asked to prove it, producing said leprechaun would be extraordinary.

The claim is extraordinary because leprechauns are mythical beings not believed by most to actually exists in the flesh. To produce a living leprechaun, a mythical creature would be extraordinary. I am not trying to convince you with a tiny hat or tiny Shillelagh. While these items may be rare they aren’t extraordinary, they can be produced from ordinary means.

The extraordinary claim is proven with extraordinary evidence.