Is it true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

[meltzerboy]

God is eternally creating. Everything that God is or does is fully actual, not potentially actual. God does not move from a state of deciding to acting. God’s decision is **simultaneous **with his act which is itself **simultaneous **with his existence. God has never not created. God does what God is always and forever without change.

In other words, the Creation of the universe just appears to be an act of creating to us humans, who live in a temporal dimension; but this is really an illusion when viewed from G-d’s mind or perspective since He has always been creating. A theist may “understand” this given their presupposition that G-d exists, but I doubt that such a kind of reasoning would be persuasive to an atheist. This, of course, is not YOUR fault or mine. It is just that if one’s starting point is non-belief in the existence of G-d, such an argument to justify the act of Creation would probably be deemed unreasonable. For starters, how could we possibly know this feature of G-d, that is, that His decision is simultaneous with His action and is also simultaneous with His being and nature? It would appear to be nothing more than an elaborate philosophical justification to prove the perfection of G-d, Whose existence has not even been proven.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

So, it is not just that you demand “extraordinary” evidence, you think you do not have to lift a finger to get it?

Oh, I already did what I needed to do. I read all the available theories about God, and found all of them wanting. If a new line of thought will pop up - extremely unlikely - then I will contemplate it, too.

But, of course, if you are not interested in truth… Do you have a plan what you’d say to God after death in case He does exist? “There was not enough evidence.” (Russell’s plan) won’t do (as you haven’t looked for it).

Actually it is more than sufficient.

And let me guess - somehow, you will not want to assign the previous principle (that the one who makes the claim gets to do all the work) and this principle (about classification of claims) to any of those groups.

I am not interested in proving that the sky is blue. Just look up. I gave you epistemological methods pertaining the different types of claims, just as you requested.

 

[Bradski]

Actually, the claim about living in Sydney has real implications - I kinda remember you claiming that it means you know English and, therefore, if you do not understand some English sentence, it means that it is meaningless.

On the other hand, I do not see any important implications of the claim about pet dragon.

I really thought that I couldn’t have made this any simpler.

The implications are meaningful as far as I am concerned that I live in Sydney. But not for you. Not in the situation that we find ourselves. I’m some random dude on a forum with whom you are having a discussion. Whether I am in Sydney or Havana or Glasgow has zero implications as far as our interactions are concerned. If you accept my assurance that I live here and it turned out I didn’t, you might think I was a little weird claiming it. Or maybe you’d assume that I used to live there when I first joined the forum and have now moved. Either way, it’s not going to affect you in the slightest.

On the other hand, if I mentioned that I had a pet dragon and you were talking to the guys in the bar one night and said: ‘Hey, you’ll never guess - apparently there are dragons in Australia’, then at the very least you are going to appear extremely naive. To accept that there are indeed supernatural fire breathing creatures in existence would have a significant impact on the way you view the world. So you would want a hell of a lot more than just my say-so.

Just my assurance that I live in Sydney is sufficient evidence for you to accept it. It is nowhere near sufficient for the existence of supernatural creatures.

 

[meltzerboy]

I really thought that I couldn’t have made this any simpler.

The implications are meaningful as far as I am concerned that I live in Sydney. But not for you. Not in the situation that we find ourselves. I’m some random dude on a forum with whom you are having a discussion. Whether I am in Sydney or Havana or Glasgow has zero implications as far as our interactions are concerned. If you accept my assurance that I live here and it turned out I didn’t, you might think I was a little weird claiming it. Or maybe you’d assume that I used to live there when I first joined the forum and have now moved. Either way, it’s not going to affect you in the slightest.

On the other hand, if I mentioned that I had a pet dragon and you were talking to the guys in the bar one night and said: ‘Hey, you’ll never guess - apparently there are dragons in Australia’, then at the very least you are going to appear extremely naive. To accept that there are indeed supernatural fire breathing creatures in existence would have a significant impact on the way you view the world. So you would want a hell of a lot more than just my say-so.

Just my assurance that I live in Sydney is sufficient evidence for you to accept it. It is nowhere near sufficient for the existence of supernatural creatures.

Just for the record, there are dragon lizards in Australia, are there not?

 

[inocente]

Is it true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

Take the Miracle of the Sun. Witnesses reported the Sun swirling around the sky and advancing on the Earth.

That’s an extraordinary claim. Ordinary evidence such as the witness reports doesn’t begin to account for why the gravitational effects of the Sun physically dancing around million of miles of space didn’t destroy the solar system, let alone no one outside of Fátima noticing a thing. There would need to be extraordinary evidence for the claim to be more credible than a mundane explanation such as local weather causing an optical illusion.

 

[Bradski]

Just for the record, there are dragon lizards in Australia, are there not?

Yeah, lots of weird stuff down here. But let’s be specific. In the example used, we’re talking about a flying, fire-breathing, Smaug-type creature.

And boy, it’s costing me a fortune in ponies just to keep it fed.

 

[meltzerboy]

Yeah, lots of weird stuff down here. But let’s be specific. In the example used, we’re talking about a flying, fire-breathing, Smaug-type creature.

And boy, it’s costing me a fortune in ponies just to keep it fed.

But think of the satisfaction and glamour of owning such a creature, and the love!

 

[MPat]

Oh, I already did what I needed to do. I read all the available theories about God, and found all of them wanting. If a new line of thought will pop up - extremely unlikely - then I will contemplate it, too.

MPat;14795421:

Very good. So, since you have said that you need a thorough and impartial investigation for important claims, and since you also said that “Jesus is God.” is an important claim, we can conclude that, in your view, you should perform a thorough and impartial investigation of it.

No, that is not my job, since I don’t make that claim. It is the church (or the Christians in general) who make that claim, so the onus is on THEM.

Trying to have it both ways?

Either you did perform what you consider a thorough and impartial investigation - and then you get to tell us how you know that it is indeed thorough and impartial, or you didn’t - and then you get to tell us why that is supposed to be good enough.

Or, of course, you can “ragequit”.

Actually it is more than sufficient.

It isn’t, if you can’t even tell us what makes you think that you looked for evidence well enough.

I am not interested in proving that the sky is blue. Just look up. I gave you epistemological methods pertaining the different types of claims, just as you requested.

So, it sure looks like I guessed correctly - you do not want to assign the “principles” to any group. And you are not able to support them by any argument (not even “ordinary evidence”), having to use “hand waving” and distraction instead. I guess it means that the “principles” are wrong, but you don’t want to admit it.

Oh, and see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_do_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue - even “Sky is blue.” (which you used to insinuate that your “principles” do not have to be defended) is neither sufficiently obvious nor sufficiently true.

I really thought that I couldn’t have made this any simpler.

Have you considered the possibility that you have been understood, but you are just wrong?

The implications are meaningful as far as I am concerned that I live in Sydney. But not for you. Not in the situation that we find ourselves. I’m some random dude on a forum with whom you are having a discussion. Whether I am in Sydney or Havana or Glasgow has zero implications as far as our interactions are concerned. If you accept my assurance that I live here and it turned out I didn’t, you might think I was a little weird claiming it. Or maybe you’d assume that I used to live there when I first joined the forum and have now moved. Either way, it’s not going to affect you in the slightest.

And, of course, you ignore the counterexample. OK, I can give you a quote:

English is my first language. I am reasonably well read. I am somewhat competent in stringing a few words together to construct a comprehensible sentence. What you said is gibberish.

See? Living in an English-speaking country can make a difference!

And therefore (unless you want to modify your explanation), this claim does require “extraordinary evidence”.

On the other hand, if I mentioned that I had a pet dragon and you were talking to the guys in the bar one night and said: ‘Hey, you’ll never guess - apparently there are dragons in Australia’, then at the very least you are going to appear extremely naive. To accept that there are indeed supernatural fire breathing creatures in existence would have a significant impact on the way you view the world. So you would want a hell of a lot more than just my say-so.

First, it is not an example of a consequence of the claim, but an example of a consequence of accepting the claim. If you want to include them, reword your explanation accordingly, then we’ll look at it again.

Second, the “consequence” of being seen as naive looks rather underwhelming… A mention of Pascal’s Wager is sufficient to demonstrate that you “bravely” ignore possibility of going to Hell for eternity, and we are supposed to care about merely being seen as naive by random strangers?

Third, are we supposed to see a “Freudian slip” in that part about being seen as naive? Are there any other claims you reject for the same (or similar) reason?

Just my assurance that I live in Sydney is sufficient evidence for you to accept it. It is nowhere near sufficient for the existence of supernatural creatures.

As you can see, your current version of “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” does not really lead to that conclusion, even if you really want that it would.

On the other hand, the alternative prompts us to ask what evidence could be expected to be found in either case. In case of living in Sydney one might expect not just “confession”, but, let’s say, something in “Australian English” and the like (no, I am not going to look for that). In case of pet dragon we can expect, let’s say, news stories about unhappy neighbours… Or some bragging about how you got it. And thus the absence of expected evidence can be taken into account. Not to mention the need to look at alternative explanations.

In fact, whenever you see people interested in finding the truth (as opposed to just avoiding being seen as naive, or something similar), you will usually see them trying to do just that.

 

[Bradski]

On the other hand, the alternative prompts us to ask what evidence could be expected to be found in either case. In case of living in Sydney one might expect not just “confession”, but, let’s say, something in “Australian English” and the like (no, I am not going to look for that). In case of pet dragon we can expect, let’s say, news stories about unhappy neighbours…

I like the way that you spend a couple of hundred words denying what I say and then confirm it in the last paragraph.

Notwithstanding that you do actually believe that I live in Sydney just on my say so (who in blazes wouldn’t?), it seems that for you to be convinced, the evidence required is just me using some local vernacular (well, he must be in Australia – he just said ‘fair dinkum, it’s a ripper of a bloody day’).

And notwithstanding that you don’t believe I have a pet dragon (who in blazes would?), me telling you that I have one is not enough, you actually want written evidence in the form of news stories.

Q, as they say, ED

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Either you did perform what you consider a thorough and impartial investigation - and then you get to tell us how you know that it is indeed thorough and impartial, or you didn’t - and then you get to tell us why that is supposed to be good enough.

Since there is no direct way to investigate God’s existence, all I could do is read the arguments of those who believe. This includes the philosophers (Aquinas, Feser, and others), the religious apologists (you are one of them ), the so called revelations, the Bible (allegedly the “word” of God), the descriptions of alleged miracles. I consider this endeavor sufficient, and I arrived at the conclusion that the claims are unfounded and many times simply nonsensical, irrational and illogical.

If you can offer something new, I am willing to investigate further.

 

[Aloysium]

Since there is no direct way to investigate God’s existence, all I could do is read the arguments of those who believe. . .

There is only one way to know God, and that is directly.

 

[inocente]

A mention of Pascal’s Wager is sufficient to demonstrate that you “bravely” ignore possibility of going to Hell for eternity, and we are supposed to care about merely being seen as naive by random strangers?

It’s a urban myth that Pascal says you’ll go to hell. Read the book, he argues simply that if you win then you gain everything and if you lose, you lose nothing.

Only the hopelessly naive would believe the-hell-for-eternity version. As if God is running a protection racket.

“If you don’t join my religion and pay me tithes then my deity will punish you for ever and ever”. Yeah right. Talk about extraordinary claims, that one’s a doozy.

 

[MPat]

I like the way that you spend a couple of hundred words denying what I say and then confirm it in the last paragraph.

Notwithstanding that you do actually believe that I live in Sydney just on my say so (who in blazes wouldn’t?), it seems that for you to be convinced, the evidence required is just me using some local vernacular (well, he must be in Australia – he just said ‘fair dinkum, it’s a ripper of a bloody day’).

And notwithstanding that you don’t believe I have a pet dragon (who in blazes would?), me telling you that I have one is not enough, you actually want written evidence in the form of news stories.

Q, as they say, ED

You mean you have proved that you should not be trusted? I guess I can afford to concede that, if you want.

But really, you are supposed to argue for your version of “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” (or modify it, or something). I’m afraid that you haven’t done so in this post.

As I have shown - and you haven’t done much to challenge that yet - your version of that principle does not actually let you reject “Bradski has a pet dragon.”, while alternative principles can allow that. Even “Atheists are not trustworthy on the matter of pet dragons.” is sufficient here.

Oh well - if even you do not want to defend your principle, it can be safely thrown out…

Since there is no direct way to investigate God’s existence, all I could do is read the arguments of those who believe. This includes the philosophers (Aquinas, Feser, and others), the religious apologists (you are one of them ), the so called revelations, the Bible (allegedly the “word” of God), the descriptions of alleged miracles. I consider this endeavor sufficient, and I arrived at the conclusion that the claims are unfounded and many times simply nonsensical, irrational and illogical.

If you can offer something new, I am willing to investigate further.

OK, let’s try again: did you perform what you consider a thorough and impartial investigation? Possible answers:

a) “Yes” (follow-up question - how you know that it is indeed thorough and impartial?)
b) “No” (follow-up question - why that is supposed to be good enough?)
c) “I don’t know.” (follow-up questions - why that is supposed to be good enough? is there any way to find out?)
d) “There is something wrong with the question.” (follow-up question - what exactly is wrong with the question?)
e) “I refuse to answer.”

It’s a urban myth that Pascal says you’ll go to hell. Read the book, he argues simply that if you win then you gain everything and if you lose, you lose nothing.

And you might note that my point had little to do with what Pascal wrote. I pointed out that atheists like to object to Pascal’s Wager (not necessarily the original version of it) in the ways that work much better as objections to “Bradski’s” version of the principle we’re discussing.

For example, atheists like to claim that belief is not a choice, it happens “automatically” when evidence is sufficient, and, therefore, motivations - for example, possibility of ending up in Hell - can’t achieve anything. But in that case, how can a much weaker incentive (“People in bar will think I am naive!”) achieve more?

Or, alternatively, atheists claim that incentives for beliefs are irrelevant and should be ignored - but then, if stronger incentive (Hell) is irrelevant, why should a weaker incentive (opinion of people in bar) be taken into account?

Now, of course, that only means that such position is inconsistent - it might well be that it is really held.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

OK, let’s try again: did you perform what you consider a thorough and impartial investigation? Possible answers:

a) “Yes” (follow-up question - how you know that it is indeed thorough and impartial?)
b) “No” (follow-up question - why that is supposed to be good enough?)
c) “I don’t know.” (follow-up questions - why that is supposed to be good enough? is there any way to find out?)
d) “There is something wrong with the question.” (follow-up question - what exactly is wrong with the question?)
e) “I refuse to answer.”

I already answered it, and the answer was: YES. I even said that: “I consider this endeavor sufficient” and added that I am willing to investigate further, if you can offer something new. That is all. You did not offer anything new, so the case is closed. I repeat, since you don’t seem to get it: “I CONSIDERED the investigation thorough and impartial.”

Whether YOU consider it thorough and impartial in of no concern of mine.

 

[MPat]

I already answered it, and the answer was: YES. I even said that: “I consider this endeavor sufficient” and added that I am willing to investigate further, if you can offer something new. That is all. You did not offer anything new, so the case is closed. I repeat, since you don’t seem to get it: “I CONSIDERED the investigation thorough and impartial.”

OK, that’s a bit like progress… So, let’s move on to the next question (that you did not answer): how do you know that it is indeed thorough and impartial?

Whether YOU consider it thorough and impartial in of no concern of mine.

I am not asking you to persuade me. I am asking what makes you think it is thorough and impartial. Was there some checklist or something? If there was, is it universal, or used just in this one case?

Or do you just feel it was good enough - and that’s it?

 

[Bradski]

And you might note that my point had little to do with what Pascal wrote. I pointed out that atheists like to object to Pascal’s Wager (not necessarily the original version of it) in the ways that work much better as objections to “Bradski’s” version of the principle we’re discussing.

For example, atheists like to claim that belief is not a choice, it happens “automatically” when evidence is sufficient, and, therefore, motivations - for example, possibility of ending up in Hell - can’t achieve anything. But in that case, how can a much weaker incentive (“People in bar will think I am naive!”) achieve more?

Or, alternatively, atheists claim that incentives for beliefs are irrelevant and should be ignored - but then, if stronger incentive (Hell) is irrelevant, why should a weaker incentive (opinion of people in bar) be taken into account?

I guess it needs to be explained.

If you tell the guys in the bar that you believe that there are dragons in Australia because someone on a forum said he had one, then you are going to look dumb. Because it’s an extraordinary claim and you are going to need a lot more evidence than just a random guy’s say-so (maybe some news reports…).

Likewise, if you told your drinking buddies that you believe that there are dragons in Australia because if you didn’t, you might suffer for eternity and if you did you’d receive great rewards beyond imagining, then you’d look just as dumb. Probably more so. Because you can’t be coerced into belief (otherwise you’d have to consider believing that Elvis is still alive if I promised to give you a million dollars if it turned out he was).

Now swap the dragon for God and you have exactly the same situation. You cannot believe in God just because someone tells you He exists. Because it’s an extraordinary claim and you are going to need a lot more evidence than just a random guy’s say-so.

Likewise you cannot believe in Him on the off chance that you will suffer for eternity or gain the keys to heaven. Otherwise you’d look just as foolish (and probably somewhat opportunist and dishonest into the bargain).

 

[MPat]

I guess it needs to be explained.

If you tell the guys in the bar that you believe that there are dragons in Australia because someone on a forum said he had one, then you are going to look dumb. Because it’s an extraordinary claim and you are going to need a lot more evidence than just a random guy’s say-so (maybe some news reports…).

Likewise, if you told your drinking buddies that you believe that there are dragons in Australia because if you didn’t, you might suffer for eternity and if you did you’d receive great rewards beyond imagining, then you’d look just as dumb. Probably more so. Because you can’t be coerced into belief (otherwise you’d have to consider believing that Elvis is still alive if I promised to give you a million dollars if it turned out he was).

Now swap the dragon for God and you have exactly the same situation. You cannot believe in God just because someone tells you He exists. Because it’s an extraordinary claim and you are going to need a lot more evidence than just a random guy’s say-so.

Likewise you cannot believe in Him on the off chance that you will suffer for eternity or gain the keys to heaven. Otherwise you’d look just as foolish (and probably somewhat opportunist and dishonest into the bargain).

Yes, I guess “it needs to be explained.”. Since repeating the same thing doesn’t seem to work, maybe you should try to repeat it louder?

Your position - the one you are supposedly defending - has been given like this:

1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
2. “Extraordinary claims” are claims with real implications.
3. “Extraordinary evidence” is, um, news reports? (You have yet to define that part.)

Feel free to modify or clarify your position, if it is not good enough.

So, you have to show that your position is superior to alternatives. Now, the strawman alternative you keep targeting is “Accept everything anyone says as true.”. It is, um, a strawman. No one argues for it. Alternatives that have been offered are:

1. Start by checking what evidence could be expected to be found if the proposition is true - etc.
2. Atheists are not trustworthy about matters concerning pet dragons.

Next, we have to compare those alternatives. You want to compare them using two examples: “Bradski lives in Sydney.” (“golden standard” - you think it should be accepted because you say so) and “Bradski has a pet dragon.” (“golden standard” - you think it should not be accepted because you say so). I don’t think that is sufficient (there should also be a case where you actually do have “extraordinary evidence”, there should be some additional criteria, etc.), but let’s look at the results.

For results you just claim that your method gives the same results as the “golden standard” without demonstrating it step-by-step. You do not look at results of alternatives. You declare victory.

I say that your method actually gives results that do not fit the “golden standard” (or, at least, that your method is still too vague to avoid that). I also say that alternatives actually reach results close to “golden standard”, and thus are superior to your method even according to the criterion you gave.

And, instead of patching up any of those flaws in results or methodology, you keep repeating that we have to accept your “golden standard”… No, it does not make your position look any better…

So, can’t you defeat at least “Atheists are not trustworthy about matters concerning pet dragons.” properly?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

OK, that’s a bit like progress…

And it is the end of the line. This is not a Q&A session with you presenting questions and I am giving the answers. I already gave you all the necessary information.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

OK, that’s a bit like progress…

And it is the end of the line. This is not a Q&A session with you presenting questions and I am giving the answers. I already gave you all the information for your questions. If you wish to conduct a CONVERSATION, then stop acting like an interrogator.

 

[Bradski]

And it is the end of the line.

Ditto.

I have made a conscious effort over the last few weeks to stop repeating my arguments endlessly. Not always successfully, I’m afraid. But if I think I have made my point clear enough and I feel that any reasonable person could understand it (but not necessarily agree with it), then it doesn’t seem worth my effort repeating it ad nauseum.

If there are questions that arise based on anything I say, then I will do my best to answer them. Otherwise…as frustrating as it can be giving the last word to someone else, especially when there has been little attempt to address what I have said in the first instance, then so be it.