Do extrordinary events require extrordinary evidence?

[honestquestions]

I don’t, I am an admitted agnostic to all known iterations of Russell’s Teapot.

Re-learn what agnostic means. The claim is unknown or unknowable, in which case you also don’t believe in it, NOT that you propose that it doesn’t exist.

I’ll phrase it another way so you understand my point better:
There are four aliens watching us from outside our galaxy that you must pray to every day - otherwise you will burn forever in torment when you die here on Earth.
You may be agnostic in whether this can actually knowable for certain, but would you still live your life by it?

Which claim are you referring to?

Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[honestquestions]

This “contradiction” only appears in your delusions. I will explain it once, and only once.

No one says that only those claims should be accepted that can be verified empirically. If someone would make that claim, then he would commit a logical fallacy, since that claim cannot be verified empirically. But since no one says that, your “contradiction” is nothing but a huge red herring.

Do you understand this simple, logical line of thought?

I sure do.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No, our understanding of the context changes. The definition of unbelievable doesn’t change… Both sides of the equation have changed not just one. I’m not changing the definition. Extraordinary means outside the ordinary in both sides of the equation.

Both sides of what equation? Now you are creating arguments that don’t exist. This, or something similar is the argument that we have been talking about.
Premise1: Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence
Premise2: I have what i think is an extraordinary claim
Conclusion: I need extraordinary evidence to believe it.
Nothing has changed since you admitted the meaning of the word shifted in post #100.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

How deluded can you be? No one argues that claim “X” is too improbable, therefore claim “X” is false. That would be a fallacy, but this claim only exists in your brain. All we say is that claim “X” is contradicted by the KNOWN laws of nature, therefore claim “X” is extraordinary. Which part of “contradicted” and “known laws of nature” can’t you understand?

No, you only fail to understand them. As your incorrect application of the “fallacy of incredulity” so clearly demonstrated.

So you can’t imagine how a claim could be true because it “contradicts” what you believe are “known” laws. Its still the Fallacy of Incredulity. Changing adjectives doesn’t change the argument.

 

[honestquestions]

So you can’t imagine how a claim could be true because it “contradicts” what you believe are “known” laws. Its still the Fallacy of Incredulity. Changing adjectives doesn’t change the argument.

In his defense, I’ve already gone over this. There very well could be a God. I would never dismiss a claim simply because it sounds too incredible. I would however dismiss it (as in not believing it, not stating that it certainly doesn’t exist) if it did not have evidence to prove it’s truth. If I tell you that you must believe in and pray to the magical leprechaun who resides in my house or else you will burn forever in torment, sure it sounds pretty incredible, but would you not believe me because it sounds incredible or because I didn’t justify why you should believe me? Oh, and it has a book full of witnesses saying everything that he is capable of.

 

[Keeler]

This is excessively juvenile on your part. One can give out the method (Christ gave it out a long time ago). That you refuse to learn it is a pathetic reason to deny it works.

Nonsense. I used to be a believer, and it never worked.

Democritus by himself attested to the existence of atoms. He could not prove it by the kind of evidence you would require. But it was still true.

It was not “true” in the way he surmised. It was just another an unsupported proposition. But you (believers) assert that God can be influenced by prayer, and God can affect this reality, so you have no excuse. God can be tested and so far the tests shows that there is no God. Maybe next time you get lucky.

 

[Keeler]

I sure do.

Of course you do.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

This “contradiction” only appears in your delusions. I will explain it once, and only once.

No one says that only those claims should be accepted that can be verified empirically. If someone would make that claim, then he would commit a logical fallacy, since that claim cannot be verified empirically. But since no one says that, your “contradiction” is nothing but a huge red herring.

Do you understand this simple, logical line of thought?

No, I don’t understand because what you are saying now seems to directly contradict what you said previously. You said

In a very good sense it is flawed. Because every claim needs the same kind of evidence - actual, real evidence. It is not necessary to subdivide claims into ordinary and extraordinary claims. We need to use the same criteria for all claims - real evidence.

Depending on the type of the claim, the evidence required is different.

1. Claims within an axiomatic system require a formal proof, resting on the axioms.
2. Claims about the external reality require actual, real, verifyable evidence. (Something that poor wsp is unable to comprehend.)

That is exactly what you claimed. That hole’s getting pretty deep, you better give me the shovel.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Keeler]

So you can’t imagine how a claim could be true because it “contradicts” what you believe are “known” laws.

I am not interested in “imagining” anything. I do not differentiate between “ordinary” and “extraordinary” claims. I am waiting for the demonstrations of these claims. (Resurrecting dead corpses, walking on water, feeding a crowd with one loaf of bread, moving mountains, or whatever…) And they are not forthcoming.

Its still the Fallacy of Incredulity. Changing adjectives doesn’t change the argument.

And you keep on proving that you do not comprehend it.

 

[ManOnFire]

Time travel is impossible, yet that doesn’t stop some from having faith, hope, belief in it. The key is egotistical selective open mindedness.

 

[honestquestions]

Time travel is impossible, yet that doesn’t stop some from having faith, hope, belief in it.

You’re playing semantics. And you need to be clear, as the three words you put together are not the same thing.

I hope time travel is eventually possible because I would find it very enjoyable to experience it.

I have a little faith (only in the sense of trust based on evidence of all past accomplishments) that scientists will one day be able to make it possible.

I do not currently believe it is possible because there is no verifiable evidence to suggest it so.

 

[Keeler]

No, I don’t understand because what you are saying now seems to directly contradict what you said previously.

There is no contradiction. It does not even “seem” to contradict it. A claim pertaining to external reality should not be confused with a claim about a claim pertaining to external reality. Don’t you understand the difference between a claim and a meta-claim? I guess you do not.

 

[ManOnFire]

You’re playing semantics. And you need to be clear, as the three words you put together are not the same thing.

I hope time travel is eventually possible because I would find it very enjoyable to experience it.

I have a little faith (only in the sense of trust based on evidence of all past accomplishments) that scientists will one day be able to make it possible.

I do not currently believe it is possible because there is no verifiable evidence to suggest it so.

If time travel were possible, one could hypothethetically travel through time to kill one of your parents before you were conceived, but then you would never have existed. The same is true of those with whom you disagreed, like dictators. This would make others who died at their hands magically reappear. Your parent might have married someone else, and you might not exist, setting off a chain reaction that NEVER ends. It’s small minded to look at one singular time travel event and pretend that it would have little bearing on many other events. The smart man travels all the way back to when there was only one woman, then destroys the technology.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Keeler

*Nonsense. I used to be a believer, and it never worked. *

Nonsense. You were never a believer … except in your head. If in your heart you would never have stopped believing.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Re-learn what agnostic means. The claim is unknown or unknowable, in which case you also don’t believe in it, NOT that you propose that it doesn’t exist.

You’re thinking of a religious agnostic. Obviously I am not a religious agnostic.

Definitions of agnostic on the Web: someone who is doubtful or noncommittal about something

I am agnositc (in the non-committal sense) on any known iteration of Russell’s Teapot.

 

[jonfawkes]

Both sides of what equation? Now you are creating arguments that don’t exist. This, or something similar is the argument that we have been talking about.
Premise1: Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence
Premise2: I have what i think is an extraordinary claim
Conclusion: I need extraordinary evidence to believe it.
Nothing has changed since you admitted the meaning of the word shifted in post #100.

On one side there is a claim on the other evidence. Both are “extra ordinary” outside the normal experience.

The word extraordinary still means extra ordinary, outside the normal experience, there is no semantic shift.

Using the coelacanth example show me where you think I change the meaning.

 

[honestquestions]

You’re thinking of a religious agnostic. Obviously I am not a religious agnostic.I am agnositc (in the non-committal sense) on any known iteration of Russell’s Teapot.

You didn’t answer my question, but you did appear to say you’re biased.
Most religious people claim to be agnostic in that they admit they don’t have divine knowledge.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…There very well could be a God. I would never dismiss a claim simply because it sounds too incredible. I would however dismiss it (as in not believing it, not stating that it certainly doesn’t exist) if it did not have evidence to prove it’s truth…

There are several problems with that idea. Not meeting your subjective standard of evidence is the same excuse a Creationist uses to dismiss the theory of evolution. Surely you would agree that subjective standards of evidence are essentially meaningless. It amounts to little more than simply believing what one wants to be true and then setting the bar of evidence appropriately. Even if one could maintain an internal sense of fairness, no one that disagrees with you will ever believe it. Maintaining a belief that one cannot justify any way but by personal opinion is an intellectually weak position to hold.

 

[honestquestions]

There are several problems with that idea. Not meeting your subjective standard of evidence is the same excuse a Creationist uses to dismiss the theory of evolution. Surely you would agree that subjective standards of evidence are essentially meaningless. It amounts to little more than simply believing what one wants to be true and then setting the bar of evidence appropriately. Even if one could maintain an internal sense of fairness, no one that disagrees with you will ever believe it. Maintaining a belief that one cannot justify any way but by personal opinion is an intellectually weak position to hold.

So then we must demonstrate our set our standards based on reason. I’ve shown problems with your set of standards by asking you a similar question:
There are 4 aliens watching you from another galaxy and you must pray to them or face eternal torment when you die here on earth. There is a book full of testimonials. I have just shown that it is illogical to pray to them. Most humans think it’s irrational since any number of claims like this can be made, and therefore we must raise the standard and require empirical evidence.

There may be testimonial claims from scientists who think evolution is true, but I would never accept only on the basis of words. I would at least require pictures, documents, fossils, DNA, etc., and they have been able to provide it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I am not interested in “imagining” anything.

Argument from incredulity / Lack of imagination

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

1. P is too incredible (or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
2. It is obvious that P (or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false) therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.

I do not differentiate between “ordinary” and “extraordinary” claims. I am waiting for the demonstrations of these claims. (Resurrecting dead corpses, walking on water, feeding a crowd with one loaf of bread, moving mountains, or whatever…) And they are not forthcoming.

Now your back publicly admitting belief in the validity of a logical contradiction. Even worse, it was already demonstrated for you. logical contradiction, Verification.

Verification- and falsification-principles

The statements “statements are meaningless unless they can be empirically verified” and “statements are meaningless unless they can be empirically falsified” are both claimed to be self-refuting on the basis that they can neither be empirically verified nor falsified.[32]

At least Santa Claus is possible, logical contradictions are not. Are you so desperate to deny G-d exist that you are willing to believe in something that is impossible?

And you keep on proving that you do not comprehend it.

Yeah, and you don’t contradict yourself every other post.