An offence against an infinite being is an infinite offence.
Hah. I’ll take the smiley there as a mnemonic that this isn’t a serious response.
Science itself presupposes the power and value of reason and a rational universe for which the only adequate explanation is the supreme love and wisdom of God.
This is definitely not a serious response. Simply a self-serving platitude –
what I prefer is the only adequate explanation. Facile.
Toucstone is one of those lovable atheists that you just want to hug sometimes. Although I am going to have to attack the bellow:
Heh. I’m told it’s just the glow of my decades of faithful Christianity that hasn’t worn off yet even as my mind descends into the abyss…
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, depending on who is making these extraordinary claims. For example say you are friends with a government worker and he tells you that Britain has entered a secret alliance with North Korea. Obviously this would be an extraordinary claim. It would be possible that this government worker could have run across some secret papers that he was not supposed to see, but this is highly unlikely. Now suppose you were told by the President of the United States that Britain had entered a secret alliance with North Korea. Surely the President, if anyone, would be in a position to know if this is true or not. If the President went on national television and revealed such an extraordinary claim, nobody would demand that he prove it.
Perhaps, but that quite an esoteric example to throw out, confounded by the ‘secrecy’ factor.
Look, if I tell you I have a motorcycle, you would likely demand no evidence at all; this is a perfectly mundane claim, and many people in our culture own motorcycles. It’s not the least bit implausible, and happens all the time.
But now I tell you I own a copy of every model of Ferrari ever made. That’s possible, you suppose… could happen. But it does seem extraordinary, and slightly fantastic. That’s a a whole lotta money to invest in cars, for example – millions and millions of dollars laid out for the collection. Further, it’s reasonable to think that such a collection, even if you haven’t heard of me, the owner, might well be a famous collection, something known in the culture. Could be, but here you rightly become suspicious, and suppose some kind of supporting evidence is needed to sustain belief in that claim – pictures, news articles, etc.
Now I go one further, and say I own a spaceship, my own Space Shuttle. Now that is possible, perhaps, but is quite an extraordinary prospect. Space Shuttles are only manufactured in very small numbers, are fabulously expensive, and are not to be privately owned, even by the world’s rich and famous. It’s not out of the question, but this would be a claim that positively demands solid evidential support. Maybe a personal visit, or reports from a group of visiting independent scientists checking my space jalopy out, video included.
If I tell you I have an interstellar spaceship, with time travel hyperdrive, you can tell me to get lost, failing overwhelmingly strong evidence. You’d be a fool to believe me without a major skeptical investigation coming back aces on the claim, as this claim is preposterous on its face – we aren’t even aware of the existence or
possibility of such technologies.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence depending on who is making the claim. So too, that when God, the highest authority, who cannot deceive or be deceived, reveals something, we do not need any evidence – we take his word for it.
Isn’t that the apotheosis of the argument from authority? I know that authority can be properly invoked, as the appeal to established expertise (a geneticist is more credible than a laymen in testifying about DNA evidence!), but here, aren’t you appealing to
power?
And of course, the import of the principle – extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims – is important precisely as a way to gauge the claims for God’s authority in the first place. The claim of plenopotential sovereignty is a rather grand claim! Grand evidence is in order to sustain it.
Now then comes how do we know that God is revealing himself? Is this an extraordinary claim?
I am the God of the universe, the ruler and creator of all things! Can you think of
any claim more extraordinary than that? What would exceed that claim?
To a person who comes to the knowledge of the existence of God, and who’s intuition tells them that it would be fitting for a God, the creator of all things, to reveal himself to humans I don’t believe it would be extraordinary, but expected. Furthmore even if the person beleives it is not fitting, then is still is not extraordinary, just ordinary.
The ‘extraordinary’ qualifier there doesn’t speak to anticipation, but it’s
mundanity, it’s banality. Touchstone has a motorcycle? Ho hum. That fits our everyday experiences. There is some supernatural being trying to communicate with me, or otherwise seeking a relationship with me, and it is the creator of the universe? Hardly something we grant passage based on the mundane character of the claim.
Which is to suggest that you are equivocated on ‘extraordinary’ here.
You can’t go from B-C without first going to A first. A theist should not find your objections compelling for the very fact that they hold the truth that God does exist.
Yes, agree. Theism is epistemically self-insulating in that way.
-TS
Anyone who knows the confidentiality of the election of a Pope would find Our Lady of Fatima interesting to say the least, though. Oh well; I tried. 
).