Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

[Goose]

The following mantra is often repeated in regards to the miracles of Jesus, in particular the resurrection of Jesus:

But, it is also true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence [ECREE].

It seems to me, regarding events from ancient history, the proposition ECREE is meaningless without qualifying and quantifying what constitutes extraordinary evidence. I'm inclined to think it is a convenient way to put the goal posts on wheels.

First question: Is the proposition: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence true or false?

Second question: What constitutes extraordinary evidence for ancient history?

[Goose]

Now, extraordinary evidence means it can be verified repeatedly, by multiple methods.

What methods?

[Goose]

First question: Is the proposition: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence true or false?

True. See Humes Maxim:

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish...

I'm not sure how Hume's maxim makes the proposition true. Let's break Hume's maxim down and look at it logically. The falsehood of the testimony supporting a miracle claim will NEVER be more miraculous than the claim itself as the falsehood of the evidence that supports a miracle will by necessity not be or not appear miraculous. Hume has created an impossible standard that can't be met even in principle. Let me explain with an example:

Let P = A dead person returned to life.
Evidence for P is X: Person B was pronounced dead by medical professionals and subsequently returned to life.
For P to be established by Hume's reasoning we must show the falsehood of X to be more miraculous than P.
~(X):It is not true that person B was pronounced dead by medical professionals and subsequently returned to life.

Let P = A bird with no wings flew.
Evidence for P is X: A bird with no wings was observed flying.
For P to be established by Hume's reasoning we must show the falsehood of X to be more miraculous than P.
~(X): It is not true that a bird with no wings was observed flying.

Hume's standard, even in principle, can't show a miracle to be possible and is thus as meaningless as ECREE.

The question I would ask Hume, and you, is why wouldn't you accept the BEST explanation whether it be natural or supernatural. If one rejects a supernatural explanation, even though it is the BEST explanation, on the basis it is a miracle then one rejects the explanation a priori because it is a miracle and is engaging in circular reasoning.

Second question: What constitutes extraordinary evidence for ancient history?

Depends entirely on the claim. But since I know you are not going to accept that, I will need to elaborate.

You are right I do not accept this. Why would it depend first on what the claim was unless you were a priori trying to determine if the claim was possible?

Now what if I told you that I have found a way for humans not to require water or nutrients of any kind, and still be able to walk around and generally be alive?

First, arguments by hypothetical are weak. But, I would gather all the available data. I would accept as true which ever explanation had the greatest power and scope for that data.

What if I told you that 60 years ago, for an entire year, that the sun did not shine in Cuba?

Would you believe these claims, based on my testimony? Maybe not. What if I were to be able to bring in a group of my buddies to support my claim and honesty? Would you believe me then?

Same answer as above.

I suspect you would dismiss the claim a priori.

Hopefully you would be sane enough not to, based on my claims. Hopefully you would argue that not only do I need to produce evidence that the actual claims are possible, but that I would also have to provide sufficient evidence to counteract the already extraordinary evidence that says these things are not possible.

The rational thing to do would be to investigate the existing evidence and look for the best explanation of that evidence. Not make up my mind before and then demand an unreasonable amount of evidence so it can not in principle even be met in order to justify my belief that such a thing is impossible.

I still don't see how you have answered the question: What constitutes extraordinary evidence for ancient history?

[Goose]

Goose First question: Is the proposition: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence true or false?

I believe it to be true. Extraordinary means beyond what is usual, ordinary, regular, or established. If anyone makes a claim which is extraordinary, then the required support for that claim must also be beyond what is usual, ordinary, regular or established.

However, I can think of many things that are beyond usual, ordinary, or regular in relation to me doing the laundry for example. Such as being struck by lightening, winning a big lottery, assassination of a head of state. So, I think when you say "extraordinary" you are really meaning anything supernatural. Which implies an immediate bias toward the supernatural. Saying something must be established for it to be not extraordinary begs the question.

Second question: What constitutes extraordinary evidence for ancient history?

...You are right, that does look a lot like a way to put the goal posts on wheels. Sorry about that. Maybe I'll stop asking for extraordinary evidence, and just continue to ask for evidence. I believe that the evidence, scant that it is, is not compelling.

But there is evidence. If it were as scant as claimed it would be a piece of cake to fail it using a reasonable historical method (that would not also fail most other ancient events already known to be true) and your non-belief would be entirely justified. By asking for extra-ordinary evidence (or even more evidence for that matter) one tacitly admits this.

[Goose]

First question: Is the proposition: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence true or false?

Even if it can be shown true, requesting extraordinary evidence is a tacit admission that there exists enough ordinary evidence to warrant belief. If there were not enough ordinary evidence to warrant belief one would simply be able to fail an claim from ancient history on the ordinary evidence that exists using a reasonable historical method.

If extraordinary claims never required more than meager evidence, we'd be running around with the knowledge that ghosts exist, that big foot exists and that Nessie swims the waters of Loch Ness.

Each of these I can go and investigate for myself, for the most part, as these are modern claims. So your analogies are fallacious. I can not go and watch the resurrection of Jesus as it was reported to have happened 2000 years ago. The rational thing is to evaluate the evidence in existence, not request more that doesn't exist and can't be produced to justify my non-belief.

One question for you: If we don't require loads of evidence to believe something, no matter how extraordinary...why do you dismiss the miracles of other religions?

Who said I dismiss the miracles of other religions. In fact, if they can be established it only supports the idea of the supernatural. Now, try to stay on topic Scot and answer the questions for debate.

[Goat]

Now, extraordinary evidence means it can be verified repeatedly, by multiple methods.

What methods?

Depends on the incident. For historical items, there is forensic evidence. For something like QM, there is a whole bunch of different experiments to see if predictions made by the theory match actual observations. For the big bang, we have CMB, distribution of galaxies, and a few other things.

I would say for historical claims, there is archelogical evidence, and I think for some claims, we have to show that in principle it is feasible.

Now, let's get to the heart of the matter. Besides account written decades later, by people who had a theological axe to grind, what evidence do you have the resurrection happened?

You seem to do everything but present that evidence. Golly gee willigers batman, I wonder why?

[McCulloch]

However, I can think of many things that are beyond usual, ordinary, or regular in relation to me doing the laundry for example. Such as being struck by lightening, winning a big lottery, assassination of a head of state. So, I think when you say "extraordinary" you are really meaning anything supernatural. Which implies an immediate bias toward the supernatural. Saying something must be established for it to be not extraordinary begs the question.

None of your examples are truly extraordinary. I can point out to you quite a number of heads of state who have been assassinated. It is a danger of the job. Winning the big lottery, someone wins it every time, right? How about building a sea going vessel capable of containing two to seven of every kind of animal? Extraordinary! Healing blindness with mud and spit. Extraordinary! Stopping the sun in the sky. Extraordinary! Translating reformed hieroglyphics with the aid of magic glasses. Niagara Falls stopped.

But there is evidence. If it were as scant as claimed it would be a piece of cake to fail it using a reasonable historical method (that would not also fail most other ancient events already known to be true) and your non-belief would be entirely justified. By asking for extra-ordinary evidence (or even more evidence for that matter) one tacitly admits this.

You are right. I should have said credible evidence. What scant evidence there is is biased.

[East of Eden]

You are right. I should have said credible evidence. What scant evidence there is is biased.

I should have used 'credible' instead of extraordinary, which we see is somewhat undefinable.

[East of Eden]

Depends on the incident. For historical items, there is forensic evidence. For something like QM, there is a whole bunch of different experiments to see if predictions made by the theory match actual observations. For the big bang, we have CMB, distribution of galaxies, and a few other things.

I would say for historical claims, there is archelogical evidence, and I think for some claims, we have to show that in principle it is feasible.

Now, let's get to the heart of the matter. Besides account written decades later, by people who had a theological axe to grind, what evidence do you have the resurrection happened?

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html

You seem to do everything but present that evidence. Golly gee willigers batman, I wonder why?

[Goose]

Now, extraordinary evidence means it can be verified repeatedly, by multiple methods.

What methods?

..For historical items, there is forensic evidence...

I would say for historical claims, there is archelogical evidence, and I think for some claims, we have to show that in principle it is feasible.

Can you clarify this. Are you saying forensic evidence is extraordinary and so is archelogical evidence?

You seem to do everything but present that evidence.

And you seem to do everything but stay on topic.

[Goose]

However, I can think of many things that are beyond usual, ordinary, or regular in relation to me doing the laundry for example. Such as being struck by lightening, winning a big lottery, assassination of a head of state. So, I think when you say "extraordinary" you are really meaning anything supernatural. Which implies an immediate bias toward the supernatural. Saying something must be established for it to be not extraordinary begs the question.

None of your examples are truly extraordinary. I can point out to you quite a number of heads of state who have been assassinated. It is a danger of the job. Winning the big lottery, someone wins it every time, right? How about building a sea going vessel capable of containing two to seven of every kind of animal? Extraordinary! Healing blindness with mud and spit. Extraordinary! Stopping the sun in the sky. Extraordinary! Translating reformed hieroglyphics with the aid of magic glasses. Niagara Falls stopped.

Again, you are simply drawing the line at anything that might be considered supernatural or beyond what you think could happen as extraordinary. Which gives away a supernatural bias. Your original criteria for extraordinary was it must be beyond usual, ordinary, or regular (not including established as this begs the question). All of the things I listed fit those categories yet we wouldn't demand extraordinary evidence for them. Or if we would, what would that be?

But there is evidence. If it were as scant as claimed it would be a piece of cake to fail it using a reasonable historical method (that would not also fail most other ancient events already known to be true) and your non-belief would be entirely justified. By asking for extra-ordinary evidence (or even more evidence for that matter) one tacitly admits this.

You are right. I should have said credible evidence. What scant evidence there is is biased.

Like I said, goal posts on wheels...