Is it true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
(I love playing the atheist to atheists :))
And all you achieve is demonstrate your lack of understanding. Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell both like to play “atheist” in their books. They fail.

It is one thing to be considered a fool. It is something else to open your mouth and confirm it. 🙂 But, keep up the good work.
 
I think so. The claim of sainthood is extraordinary and requires extraordinary evidence.
I think you might change your mind after watching this 2 minute video by William Lane Craig.

youtube.com/watch?v=5HgRWvqf-wM

(This is sufficient evidence for refuting the faith-based claim that extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary evidence. :))
 
I think you might change your mind after watching this 2 minute video by William Lane Craig.

youtube.com/watch?v=5HgRWvqf-wM

(This is sufficient evidence for refuting the faith-based claim that extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary evidence. :))
Thanks for the link. I watched and think that William Lane Craig (a brilliant mind!) confuses the probabilities at different times.
Argument:
*Pre-drawing:

The odds against one lottery ticket being the winner are small. (One, and only one, lottery ticket will win.)
The odds against lottery ticket #258962548 being the winner are extraordinary.

Post-drawing (ticket #258962548 wins):

The odds against one lottery ticket being the winner are nil.
The odds against the lottery ticket #258962548 being the winner are nil.
The odds against the report that lottery ticket #258962548 is the winner are dependent on the quality of the reporter (not the ticket number).*
 
So we can then evaluate the truth of Christianity by its success?

Christianity seems pretty successful. Billions and billions of people have embraced it.

Its fruits include: the scientific method, hospitals, the university system, art, charity, kindness, Mother Teresa, St. Augustine, St. Edith Stein, John Paul II, Mendelian genetics, Pachelbel, Bach…
The success is orthogonal to the claims. That is, the existence of nice people or hospitals doesn’t require a real live God-Man to have existed.
 
. . . as someone once said: what has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence . . .
Beliefs determine what we expect and therefore what and how we interpret what we see.
There is no evidence without a theory that extracts it, telling us what it is.

Where the default position is that there is no God, there will be no way, for example, that such things as miracles will be accepted. These events will immediately be assumed to be part of the noise of existence, like a lottery win - random happenings resulting from a multitude of factors that are for the most part unknown and uncontrollable. The miraculous is discarded at the most basic level of identification in what is believed to be a random, chaotic universe.

What is not accepted as chaotic, are the physical laws of nature and the capacity to discern them through empirical research. This approach to knowledge is felt to lie at the foundation of nature - evolution. What works, makes it; what doesn’t is discarded. That’s why zealots like Dawkins sound like preachers, proclaiming their transcendent truth that empiricism and evolution are one reality.

But God is the Truth. And, one truth that is diminished, if not discarded has to do with meaning. When we ignore God, outside of power and survival, there is no meaning, only that found in the observed structure of the natural universe where everything dies, but may procreate. What remains otherwise are preferences and opinion. Since there is no true meaning to existence without a connection to God, we may be left either rudderless or at best, chasing after transient and illusory satisfactions. In the search for power or in the hope of a worldly transcendence, we may surrender our selves to the dictator, who represents and exerts the power of the group, on which is projected something deemed to be greater than the individual. People will die for that, a useless death, but consistent with an emphasis on evolution - the survival of the group.

But Christianity is not about power, although some may seek it though it’s worldly social form. People die for God, for love, the truth that transcends this world.

In the end, we see what we can see.
As the the second reading ends today:
“Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable.
You will do well to be attentive to it,
as to a lamp shining in a dark place,
until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.”
Daylight will come, the Light will shine, visible to all and making all clear.
In the meantime, it’s better to attend to the flame of revealed truth.
It is possible to lose one’s way in the darkness, which offers the illusion of protection, and turn oneself into an enemy of the Light.
 
Thanks for the link. I watched and think that William Lane Craig (a brilliant mind!) confuses the probabilities at different times.
Argument:
*Pre-drawing:

The odds against one lottery ticket being the winner are small. (One, and only one, lottery ticket will win.)
The odds against lottery ticket #258962548 being the winner are extraordinary.

Post-drawing (ticket #258962548 wins):

The odds against one lottery ticket being the winner are nil.
The odds against the lottery ticket #258962548 being the winner are nil.
The odds against the report that lottery ticket #258962548 is the winner are dependent on the quality of the reporter (not the ticket number).*
I don’t think you should focus necessarily on the concept of winning the lottery.

The point he is making is: you need not have extraordinary evidence for someone making an extraordinary claim (like winning the lottery). You just need sufficient evidence.

That is, you heard it on the news.

That’s not an extraordinary venue for providing evidence. It’s quite banal, in fact.

Yet no sane person is skeptical that someone one the lottery when he sees it on the news.

He accepts this extraordinary claim because he has sufficient evidence for it–the TV news typically is truthful.
 
I don’t think you should focus necessarily on the concept of winning the lottery.

The point he is making is: you need not have extraordinary evidence for someone making an extraordinary claim (like winning the lottery). You just need sufficient evidence.

That is, you heard it on the news.

That’s not an extraordinary venue for providing evidence. It’s quite banal, in fact.

Yet no sane person is skeptical that someone one the lottery when he sees it on the news.

He accepts this extraordinary claim because he has sufficient evidence for it–the TV news typically is truthful.
I see your point. But I still see it as a confusion of categories. The lottery is on the natural order; sainthood and Resurrection on the supernatural order.

I think the claim that someone won the lottery is not extraordinary. Ordinary evidence suffices (ticket, please).

The claim that one is in heaven is extraordinary (miracles, please).

The claim that our Lord was raised from death is extraordinary (Put your finger here and see my hands … Blessed are those who have not seen). Faith is a supernatural gift.
 
The point he is making is: you need not have extraordinary evidence for someone making an extraordinary claim (like winning the lottery). You just need sufficient evidence.

That is, you heard it on the news.

That’s not an extraordinary venue for providing evidence. It’s quite banal, in fact.

Yet no sane person is skeptical that someone one the lottery when he sees it on the news.

He accepts this extraordinary claim because he has sufficient evidence for it–the TV news typically is truthful.
I have previously corrected you on this point. Do you still not understand, or are you deliberately misrepresenting my point?
It’s like the silly “winning the lottery” example people trot out when they think they can philosophize about statistics without understanding it. Sure, winning the lottery as an individual is a very unlikely event. But it is an ordinary event. We don’t need to reformulate our understanding of statistics to explain how someone could win. We’re not asserting that probability doesn’t apply to the winner anymore.
 
I have previously corrected you on this point. Do you still not understand, or are you deliberately misrepresenting my point?
Neither.

I think you’re incorrect.

Winning the lottery is an extraordinary event.

Atheists deny this and claim it’s ordinary.

And that’s only when they are on a forum trying to defend a dogma that has no empirical data to back it up. It’s only something atheists have believed, oddly, because they heard someone else say it, who heard someone else say it…but no one has have offered any empirical data to support the dogma, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

It is, amusingly, a faith-based assertion.
 
I see your point. But I still see it as a confusion of categories. The lottery is on the natural order; sainthood and Resurrection on the supernatural order.

I think the claim that someone won the lottery is not extraordinary.
Nope. It’s extraordinary.

It’s not supernatural, true.

But that’s a dichotomy that needs not be entertained.

“Either something is supernatural, or it’s ordinary”.

No.

Something can be natural and quite extraordinary.
 
Neither.

I think you’re incorrect.

Winning the lottery is an extraordinary event.

Atheists deny this and claim it’s ordinary.
So you admit that you are mischaracterizing the atheist position? I.e. proposing a straw man?
And that’s only when they are on a forum trying to defend a dogma that has no empirical data to back it up. It’s only something atheists have believed, oddly, because they heard someone else say it, who heard someone else say it…but no one has have offered any empirical data to support the dogma, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

It is, amusingly, a faith-based assertion.
I have provided evidence for the claim. Did you not understand the evidence I provided, or are you ignoring it?
 
Because winning the lottery does not fall under the definition for extraordinary I proposed. Putting your fingers in your ears and attacking my position as though winning the lottery does fall under the definition is called “attacking a strawman.”
 
Are you aware that the precise philosophical definition of a term may differ from it’s colloquial use?
So who decides when it’s permissible to use the colloquial vs philosophical?

And who decides when it’s prohibited from using the both/and?
 
Because winning the lottery does not fall under the definition for extraordinary I proposed.
Let’s look at some…er…empirical data here and see whose position is supported.

The atheist position that winning the lottery is ordinary…

or PR’s position that winning the lottery is extraordinary.

Google “Is winning the lottery ordinary?”…and see what you come up with, ok, JK?

🍿
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top