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

[Ravenstar]

^^^ Out of points for today

 

but...I love you     

[disillusioned]

Extraordinary posts require extraordinary grammar.

 

Well, 1AAT1's grammar is definitely extraordinary... just not in a good way.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

If it is not absolute like you want it to be then its subejctive and if its subjective it doesnt apply to everyone right? and again....extradoinary claims need extraordinary evidence is itself an extraordinary assertion claim so one must ask what Extraordinary evidence of you have to back up this claim?

[Orbit]

What is subjective? Evidence is objective. You're making word salad.

[mymistake]

If it is not absolute like you want it to be then its subejctive and if its subjective it doesnt apply to everyone right? and again....extradoinary claims need extraordinary evidence is itself an extraordinary assertion claim so one must ask what Extraordinary evidence of you have to back up this claim?

 

You are trying to be funny, right?  You mostly come off as silly.

 

Okay extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence.  So you believe in ghosts, zombies, vampires, werewolfs, bigfoot, sea monsters, Ceiling Cat, da boogie man, da Easter Bunny, da Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Spiderman, Odin, Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Athena, Aphrodite, Poseidon, Ra, Invisible Pink Unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and also the Original Model T Ford that created our whole universe?

 

If you believe in your God but you won't believe in any of these other things that have just as much evidence to support them (none) then your beliefs are arbitrary.

[disillusioned]

If it is not absolute like you want it to be then its subejctive and if its subjective it doesnt apply to everyone right? and again....extradoinary claims need extraordinary evidence is itself an extraordinary assertion claim so one must ask what Extraordinary evidence of you have to back up this claim?

 

My God. You must be joking.

 

The statement "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is merely a reiteration of what we all know to be true. It has been shown to be reliable throughout all of human history. The fact is, if you make a claim that fits in with what we already know, then you don't need to present as much evidence as if you make a claim that explicitly contradicts what we know to be true. This is not a revolutionary principle. It is fundamental to all clear thought.

[Deidre]

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

The material world around me, isn't ''evidence'' of a god's existence. That said, Christians by and large consider the Bible to be 'sufficient'' evidence. It isn't sufficient for an atheist, however. Or a non-Christian. It's just another story book, that offers a 'version' of god to anyone who wishes to buy into that version.

 

If someone broke into my home and I accused say my neighbor of it, I'd have to supply proof/evidence to support my claim. Otherwise, it's just a claim. A wild story. Much like religion. If you don't have something concrete, and objective to support your claims that a god exists (let alone the Christian version) then...it's no different than trying to get you to believe that my neighbor broke into my house, without sufficient proof.

 

Faith however, has little to do with evidence. My opinion. That old saying comes to mind...for a believer, no explanation is necessary, but for an atheist, no explanation will ever be enough.

[Orbit]

"for an atheist, no explanation will ever be enough."

 

It wouldn't take much to convince me.  Just a real piece of evidence.

[Deidre]

"for an atheist, no explanation will ever be enough."

 

It wouldn't take much to convince me.  Just a real piece of evidence.

What would evidence of a god "look like" though? Hmmm...

Will he leave a huge footprint behind or....?

 

I seriously wanna know.

[Orbit]

 

"for an atheist, no explanation will ever be enough."

 

It wouldn't take much to convince me.  Just a real piece of evidence.

What would evidence of a god "look like" though? Hmmm...

Will he leave a huge footprint behind or....?

 

I seriously wanna know.

 

A footprint would be good.

 

:-)

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

 

"for an atheist, no explanation will ever be enough."

 

It wouldn't take much to convince me.  Just a real piece of evidence.

What would evidence of a god "look like" though? Hmmm...

Will he leave a huge footprint behind or....?

 

I seriously wanna know.

 

 

Well that is the Conundrum the atheistic position, What evidence for God would look like would be different for each person.  some could provide x and person A says that is not good enough some could provide x and it WOULD be good enough. the view of evidence is subjective, perception and presuppositions how do we make examinatiosn without using our presuppositions?

[Orbit]

 

 

"for an atheist, no explanation will ever be enough."

 

It wouldn't take much to convince me.  Just a real piece of evidence.

What would evidence of a god "look like" though? Hmmm...

Will he leave a huge footprint behind or....?

 

I seriously wanna know.

 

 

Well that is the Conundrum the atheistic position, What evidence for God would look like would be different for each person.  some could provide x and person A says that is not good enough some could provide x and it WOULD be good enough. the view of evidence is subjective, perception and presuppositions how do we make examinatiosn without using our presuppositions?

 

No, it would not be different for each person. Any demonstrable proof would be accepted. Objective evidence is objective evidence, This is not about subjectivity, let that go.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

peoples presupposutions are different a Presupposition can change the way people view things. So how do we.. without bias examine evidence without using our presuppositions?

[WarriorPoet]

If it is not absolute like you want it to be then its subejctive and if its subjective it doesnt apply to everyone right? and again....extradoinary claims need extraordinary evidence is itself an extraordinary assertion claim so one must ask what Extraordinary evidence of you have to back up this claim?

It would take evidence, if this statement was an assertion, or a claim as you say here.  It is niether of those things.

 

The statement, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is an axiom.  A self evident principal that requires no proof.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/axiom?s=t

 

Once again, this isn't very difficult to understand.  For some additional clarification, here are the first few sentances from the Wiki article on axioms.

 

"An axiom or postulate is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.^[1] The word comes from the Greek axíōma (ἀξίωμα) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.'^[2][3] As used in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning.^[4] Axioms define and delimit the realm of analysis; the relative truth of an axiom is taken for granted within the particular domain of analysis, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other relative truths."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

[Deidre]

 

 

 

"for an atheist, no explanation will ever be enough."

 It wouldn't take much to convince me.  Just a real piece of evidence.

 

What would evidence of a god "look like" though? Hmmm...

Will he leave a huge footprint behind or....?

I seriously wanna know.

 

Well that is the Conundrum the atheistic position, What evidence for God would look like would be different for each person.  some could provide x and person A says that is not good enough some could provide x and it WOULD be good enough. the view of evidence is subjective, perception and presuppositions how do we make examinatiosn without using our presuppositions?

No, it would not be different for each person. Any demonstrable proof would be accepted. Objective evidence is objective evidence, This is not about subjectivity, let that go.

This.

 

The biggest factor for me realizing I was an atheist after deconverting from Christianity, was that literally every "believer" sees "God" a bit differently. Some follow the Christian version, others follow Islam. And a whole host of other belief systems out there.

 

If a god should exist, he should be apparent to all. One god. Or many. But he/it/she/they should be apparent to anyone.

Just like 2+2=4. It just is. You needn't try to convince anyone of the answer, for that "truth" is absolute. Objective.

 

If a god exists, why does it/he/she/they hide? Why must mankind have faith to begin with?

 

I don't hide from those I love hoping they think fondly of me and love me, too. I make myself available. As should a Creator.

 

Just my perspective, fwiw.

[Deva]

Let's take something that isn't strictly an extraordinary claim.  Lets say that i see an Ivory Billed woodpecker. This is an actual bird that did exist historically since the 1940s and is sighted from time to time by experienced contemporary observers, but not reliably and indisputably photographed (although there is one disputed photo from the 70's and another video in the early 2000s). 

 

If I saw this bird, no one would believe me unless I produced photographic or video evidence or an egg, a feather or something that could be examined for the DNA.   Therefore, if I personally saw one, I would probably not tell anyone unless I had a very good quality photo to show. 

 

And this is for an actual species. There are many stuffed specimens in museums and old photos and movies.

 

How much more stringent must be the evidence for claims such as people rising from the dead?

[Orbit]

peoples presupposutions are different a Presupposition can change the way people view things. So how do we.. without bias examine evidence without using our presuppositions?

Evidence is objective, by definition. Subjectivity has nothing to do with it. Even if you get all postmodern on us, it still doesn't change the fact that evidence is objective.  Take scientific study of the efficacy of prayer. Prayer didn't work in reducing surgery complications. Therefore there was no evidence. If there had been evidence, we would have seen a drop in the rate of complications. That's how evidence works.

[midniterider]

If it is not absolute like you want it to be then its subejctive and if its subjective it doesnt apply to everyone right? and again....extradoinary claims need extraordinary evidence is itself an extraordinary assertion claim so one must ask what Extraordinary evidence of you have to back up this claim?

 

If someone is not interested in accepting something then they require extraordinary evidence. :-) If it's something they like then their evidentiary requirement is less extraordinary. :-)

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I think the more relevant question here might be, "What kind of evidence would convince steak sauce that his god is just a delusion?"

 

Staek suase, wtah kinko f edivinc wolud convink yu thta you're gud is jsut a delisuom?

[mymistake]

 

Well that is the Conundrum the atheistic position, What evidence for God would look like would be different for each person.  some could provide x and person A says that is not good enough some could provide x and it WOULD be good enough. the view of evidence is subjective, perception and presuppositions how do we make examinatiosn without using our presuppositions?

 

 

Bullshit.  Change the name God and substitute the name of any real person.  What kind of evidence does it take for a real person?  This isn't subjective and isn't different for each observer.

 

If somebody is real you can shake their hand.  You can see them.  You can hear their voice.  (I mean really hear it with you ears, not with your imagination.)  You can take their picture.

 

An imaginary friend is a completely different story.

 

[Ouroboros]

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

It wouldn't.

 

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, those things are evidence enough to convince me that the Universe is God.

 

Other than that, yes, I agree, sufficient evidence is enough. Sufficient evidence to show that God is some external being outside of our time-space, it would require some extraordinary means to accomplish, i.e. extraordinary evidence.

[DoubtingNate]

I don't have time to read this whole thread but I'll weigh in here.

 

This is a principle that most people use for most things. If you have a sufficient explanation for something, you no longer need to look for more complicated and more unverifiable explanations. We now know what actually causes solar eclipses, so God's wrath is no longer a satisfying explanation. Evidence as revealed by the scientific method is not always foolproof, but it is the best thing we have come up with SO FAR. We know this because of the results we have gotten. 'By their fruits,' if you will. Creation myths, superstitions and arbitrary taboos and dogma haven't cured polio or put a man on the moon.

 

The thing is, you probably already KNOW this, because you (probably) go to the doctor for medical treatment. You might pray too, but unless you are party of some cult or fringe group, you still see a doctor.

 

We are culturally conditioned to special plead for God's existence and role in human events. But that's exactly what it is - special pleading. 'God' is simply not a meaningful or useful explanation for anything that exists in reality, and that makes it an extraordinary claim.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

here is the thing.....

 

How do you cross the bridge from naturalism to supernatural

if you say i would need to see an interaction from the supernatural to the natural, but this is redundant because how can you even know what a supernatural interaction IS? to determine if that connection was made between the two? how do you avoid the presupposition there is no supernatural?

[Orbit]

here is the thing.....

 

How do you cross the bridge from naturalism to supernatural

if you say i would need to see an interaction from the supernatural to the natural, but this is redundant because how can you even know what a supernatural interaction IS? to determine if that connection was made between the two? how do you avoid the presupposition there is no supernatural?

By definition, the supernatural is not detectable or measurable so it's not going to happen.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

exactly.....yet the funny thing is people keep asking for evidence for some thing they KNOW wont happen, thats like a math teacher asking students to make 5 out of 2 plus 2. pointless.