Is it true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

[Charlemagne_II]

Portofino
**
I think even Aquinas, ironically, said that the existence of God was not self-evident. **

Consider the remark in its proper context. The existence of God is not self evident to the senses. He certainly did not deny that the existence of God was self evident to the spirit. Aquinas was a natural law advocate, so for him the yearning for God was a result of the natural law.

His attempt to prove the existence of God using the five famous proofs was intended not so much for those who naturally experience God without obstruction, but rather for those who deny or are blind to the evidence in their hearts that God exists. Even then he failed to convince in most cases, because atheists who are blind to God will also be blind to any proofs for his existence.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Is it true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

Yes, however there is a caveat to this and that is extraordinary evidence does not have to show itself continually after its first presentation. Take for example the resurrection of Christ. It most assuredly would be considered by everyone to be an extraordinary claim. In fact it was so extraordinary that even one of Christ’s apostles refused to believe it until he saw the pierced hands and feet of Christ and until he put his fingers in the holes where the nails had gone and until his hand was in His side. Yes my friend Thomas thought like you and Christ gave Him what he wanted, but Christ also told Thomas that all other Thomases would now have to believe the testimony of one of their own that He is their Lord and their God. All other Thomases must now have faith.

When charged with disbelief Christ had fulfilled the obligation to present extraordinary evidence for His resurrection and He had made it clear that once evidence had been given which removed all doubt from Thomas then no more would have to be given. Would a person who is found not guilty in court have to continue presenting the evidence for his innocence after the fact? Yet who decides what is an extraordinary claim and what is not? The answer is the Church; and when she deems something an extraordinary claim then we can likewise with her ask for extraordinary evidence, that is unless a claim has already been settled and evidence has been presented and the Church has ruled that the claim has been proved worthy of belief.