Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Does Statement Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence? Well.. Lets Find Out


1AcceptingAThiest1

Recommended Posts

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence....Is this a opinionated, subjective, and relative statement? or is it absolute 100percent irrefutable statement?

 

We do not apply oberservation, experimentation, and repetition to the subject of Napoleons existence. The genre, history, does not fit that methodology. Yet i see Atheists sometimes require that experimentation and repetition to something that only occured once and cant be observed that is misapplying evidential and logical analysis when they apply it to jesus existence. Historical method is different from the scientific method

 

on one hand i agree with the statement, too many people lack the necessary skepticism and critical thinking skills to help them avoid being duped by con artists and wild theories, money scams and money hungry preachers...that i agree i understand, having a healthy sense of skepticism is good BUT

 

why do people say that statement like its the throne of uncontested truth? Instead of acknowledging its subjective nature by default and logical necessity it doesn't HAVE to apply to me only to you based on your reasoning right?

 

Do Atheist have the presuposition that God does not exist? is this why atheist require extraordinary evidence? It enables them to retain their presupposition should the extraordinary level of the evidence not be met.Someones presuppositions greatly effect the way certain statements or made or the impact of the belief IN that statement

Will our presupposition allow for an unbaised examination of evidence and how?

 

What would Qualify as Extraordinary evidence? seeing how it is subjective it would be different for every individual some would accept x amount of evidence and another would require double x and another would require triple x. Each require SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE for themself and THEIR reasoning ability. Atheist tend to forget thereis a "SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE" category yet they apply it all the time, like believing a dog or alien is a friends back yard without seeing it. the more extraordinary it seems to each PERSON individually they require more evidence to believe but again what qualifies as extraordinary is relative therefore the statement extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence is not a universal as one would hope.

 

To say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is to make an extraordinary assertion. How does the person know that the statement is ACTUALLY true? is it a universal statement! Isn't that extraordinary? Is it a universal principle? If , please show me the extraordinary evidence that the statement is true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i am god n created the universe,,,,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i can tell you are wearing a blue shirt and black jeans sitting in a chair with cheetos next to the computer monitor as your cat circles your computer and every now and then purs and rubs against you as you type here on ex-christian.net

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I have milk in my fridge." 

 

You say "prove it".  I open the fridge door and there is a cardboard milk carton on the top shelf of the fridge, front and center  It is still sealed as I had just brought it home from the grocery store.  Most people at this point would would believe my claim without having to feel the carton, open it and then look at and taste the contents.  This is because this claim is not extraordinary, in other words, it is ordinary.

 

"I have a sealed milk carton in my fridge that contains a diamond the size of a baseball."

 

You say "prove it".  I open the fridge door and there is a cardboard milk carton on the top shelf of the fridge, front and center.  It is still sealed as I had just brought it back from being sealed to protect the diamond that I claim to have stored inside of it.  At this point, everyone that heard my claim would demand to open the carton, investigate the contents and possibly require an analysis from a jeweler as to the authenticity of the diamond, if such a stone were to be discovered in the carton.  That is because this claim is extraordinary, it requires very conclusive evidence for anyone to believe it.

 

This is a very easy concept to comprehend.  I hope I just helped you out in that endeavor.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Warrior but as i stated earlier people are subjective and view extraordinary differently as i stated above ""would be different for every individual some would accept x amount of evidence and another would require double x and another would require triple x. Each require SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE for themself and THEIR reasoning ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I defer to Matt Dilahunty's answer on this point.  This is not an exact quote, but I will do my best to get it as close to right as I can.

 

An omniscient god would know exactly what evidence it would take to convince me (or anyone else) and an omnipotent god could manifest that evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A1 Sauce, any evidence will do. Please enlighten us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The phrase refers to the threshold required for an idea to have merit.  It is irrelevant when "some people" might accept an idea.  One guy might see a sign that says "wet paint" on a park bench and have to touch the bench and get paint on his finger before he believes it.  The same guy might blindly accept claims that Zeus is real and Zeus loves him without needing any evidence at all.

 

But those two claims have very different thresholds for being reasonable.  For the park bench the only issue is "Did the painter forget to take down the sign after the paint dried?".  Obviously we know that pain exist and it goes on wet.  Painters exist.  These are well established facts.

 

Is there a Zeus?  Can Zeus even feel emotions that correspond to love?  Does Zeus know humanity exists?  Does Zeus know the guy in question?  So many issues need to be resolved for the claim to have merit.  Of course if Zeus appeared in person and brought flowers then the claim would have merit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heh my if God Forced evidence on you then that wouldnt be free will now would it?

 

and orbit that is exactly my point...ANY evidence should do it doesnt have to be extraordinary, because SUFFICIENT evidence is different for everyone. to me evidence for God would be looking at creation the earth,the stars the water the grass, most things that a created have a created or came from somewhere. My sufficient evidence that i provided is not good enough for YOUR sufficent evidence that YOU provided

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my mistake you make a valid point with facts in play then it will boil down to presuppositons, how do we unbaisly examine evidence without our presuppositions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heh my if God Forced evidence on you then that wouldnt be free will now would it?

 

and orbit that is exactly my point...ANY evidence should do it doesnt have to be extraordinary, because SUFFICIENT evidence is different for everyone. to me evidence for God would be looking at creation the earth,the stars the water the grass, most things that a created have a created or came from somewhere. My sufficient evidence that i provided is not good enough for YOUR sufficent evidence that YOU provided

What you are calling "evidence" is in fact not evidence. You don't know how the universe was created so you leave your logic behind and say "god did it". That's an opinion, that's not fact, not evidence. Opinions aren't evidence. Yes, any true evidence will do, but that ain't it. The laws of physics do allow for a universe to exist from nothing (Google Lawrence Krauss).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heh my if God Forced evidence on you then that wouldnt be free will now would it?

 

 

I would still be perfectly free to reject him as the completely mad, genocidal and petulant thing that he is.  Satan supposedly knows god far more than any human does, he spent eons in heavan with him and he still rejected god.  Just because I would be convinced that he exisists wouldn't deny my freedom to follow him or not.

 

Besides, this whole concept of "free will" is just an excuse from apologists.  Saul/Paul was given some pretty convincing evidence when he had his vision on the road to Damascus.  Mary was a virgin when she became pregnant.  The 12 diciples saw jesus perform a multitude of miracles.  According to the stories, they got significant evidence and no christian ever complains that god was interfering with their free will.  Why should I or anyone else be different?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread really needs to go in the Den

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread really needs to go in the Den

Yes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heh my if God Forced evidence on you then that wouldnt be free will now would it?

 

If invisible pink unicorns forced evidence on me then that wouldn't be free will now would it? Or is this just an excuse for the never-present IPU and never-present God?

 

 

 

and orbit that is exactly my point...ANY evidence should do it doesnt have to be extraordinary, because SUFFICIENT evidence is different for everyone. to me evidence for God would be looking at creation the earth,the stars the water the grass, most things that a created have a created or came from somewhere. My sufficient evidence that i provided is not good enough for YOUR sufficent evidence that YOU provided

 

To me, evidence of the earth, stars, water and grass is seeing earth, stars, water and grass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my mistake you make a valid point with facts in play then it will boil down to presuppositons, how do we unbaisly examine evidence without our presuppositions?

 

Objective reality is a presupposition. It hasn't been proven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my mistake you make a valid point with facts in play then it will boil down to presuppositons, how do we unbaisly examine evidence without our presuppositions?

 

 

I'm not going to spoon feed you the whole way.  Look one method leads to all of the technology we have created in our modern world plus all the technology we will invent in the future.  Other paths lead to madness where anything could be true and you can't be certain of anything at all.  Right now are we communicating on the interwebs that was provided by science?

 

Seems obvious which method works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heh my if God Forced evidence on you then that wouldnt be free will now would it?

 

and orbit that is exactly my point...ANY evidence should do it doesnt have to be extraordinary, because SUFFICIENT evidence is different for everyone. to me evidence for God would be looking at creation the earth,the stars the water the grass, most things that a created have a created or came from somewhere. My sufficient evidence that i provided is not good enough for YOUR sufficent evidence that YOU provided

How exactly do you know "free will" as you apparantly understand it even exists? You seem to be making assumptions that must be clarified before moving on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my mistake you make a valid point with facts in play then it will boil down to presuppositons, how do we unbaisly examine evidence without our presuppositions?

 

We take observations or evidence and develop a predictive framework, a hypotheses. We test these hypotheses and observe the results. We share our methods and results with the world and open ourselves to robust scrutiny. This allows other people to perform the same tests and see if our results and conclusions can be replicated.

 

Regarding your Napoleon argument, you realise we actually have physical evidence and I believe genomic testing has been done on him. I think I even remember something about his penis size at one point. If we have enough evidence to know a guys penis size, it's fairly safe to say the person existed. Certainly a long lost penis is far more evidence than a story about a hippy zombie. Would make a neat movie title however. I am thinking something like Zombieland the prequil: Classical Antiquity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BreathinHeathen

 

heh my if God Forced evidence on you then that wouldnt be free will now would it?

What about Thomas?  He hypothetically stuck his finger in the body of Jesus three days after the crusifixion.  If I were given that kind of evidence, I would be pretty convinced.  Was Thomas's freewill taken away?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
We do not apply oberservation, experimentation, and repetition to the subject of Napoleons existence.

 

 

Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you really not understand the difference between claiming the existence of an historical human being versus claiming the existence of an invisible, undetectable spirit being?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There may be an issue of semantics here. The phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a colloquialism. What one means by this depends on what one means by "extraordinary". I think that the underlying principle is that all claims require sufficient evidence. What is deemed to be sufficient depends on the claim being made. Some claims fit in well with what we already know to be true. Such claims may be accepted with very little evidence, because they are, at least in some sense, ordinary. For example, if my wife says that she went to the store, I don't require much evidence to accept this claim. I know that stores exist, and I know that she regularly goes to them, so her claim fits in very well with what I already know to be true. If she could show me a receipt, the case would be closed. If, on the other hand, she claimed that she flew to the store under her own power, I would not believe her even if she could produce a receipt. This is because her claim would not fit in with what I know to be true. People cannot fly. I know this. Her claim would be extraordinary. In order to accept it, I would need a significant amount of very persuasive evidence.

 

Similarly, you may claim that there was an eccentric Jewish preacher by the name of Yeshua in Israel around 2000 years ago. Fine. This is a relatively ordinary claim. It fits in well with what we already know to be true. Yeshua is a typical Jewish name, and eccentric preachers were not exactly atypical at the time. Ordinary historical evidence would suffice to convince me that such a person existed. If you were to claim that this preacher rose from the dead, however, that would be entirely different. This claim would contradict what we know to be true. People do not rise from the dead. So this claim would require a significant amount of undeniable evidence in order to be accepted. The fact that there is no evidence whatsoever for this claim renders it laughable.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but even though history itself is a soft science.. the sciences which support history (palaeontology, archaeology, anthropology, chemistry, linguistics, genetics, etc…) DO require proper evidence for falsification. In the case of EXTRAORDINARY claims (Like oh.. ATLANTIS) then extraordinary evidence is most certainly required.

 

Case in point… the city of Troy. It was considered just a legend, though there was ample literary evidence for it until the site was actually found.

 

There are many 'historical' claims… and many many bits of suggestive evidence. Pottery, literature, archaeological sites, etc…but no good historian claims any interpretation of historical claims are FACTS without cross-referencing and widely supporting evidence… this is why the Exodus is considered by most historians as a myth - there is no corroborating evidence for the event… your argument is invalid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

heh my if God Forced evidence on you then that wouldnt be free will now would it?

What about Thomas?  He hypothetically stuck his finger in the body of Jesus three days after the crusifixion.  If I were given that kind of evidence, I would be pretty convinced.  Was Thomas's freewill taken away?

 

 

 

In the story Pharaoh's free will was taken away.  The Bible specifically says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that God would have an excuse to punish the land of Egypt.  That meant God causing great suffering and murdering both people and animals by the thousands.  Maybe God doesn't really love the world.  Maybe God loves torturing people.  That would explain why the salvation message is confusing.  Perhaps God wants to trick everyone into going to hell.

 

These are the types of problems that arise when people take the traditions of multiple opposing religions and force them together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.