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]

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.

[Goat]

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.

Well, no, it does not. For example.. in the case of the Gospels, we don't have any evidence that is secular from within 60 years of the event, and that particular piece of evidence is so corrupted as to make it unreliable, since it is largely acknoweldge to have at least been tampered with.

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

What methods do you propose that can show that a body that is rotting to the point of stinking can come back, so we know it is feasible in principle?

[TheOneAndOnly]

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.

Or it could be simply a method of exposing those who do.

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

Replace "miracles" with "extraordinary claims".

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.

Most 'ordinary' claims already have extraordinary evidence to back them up. We know that we require oxygen to breath, we require nutrients to sustain our bodies. We know the sun shines during the daytime rotation of the earth. We even know this when the clouds are overcast. There is more than enough evidence to support these claims.

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?

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?
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.

That is extraordinary evidence.

[McCulloch]

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.

Second question: What constitutes extraordinary evidence with regards to ancient history?

Sorry to sound vague here, but that depends on how extraordinary the claim is. The more extraordinary the claim, the less corroborating evidence there is, the greater the requirement for extraordinary evidence. 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.

[Scotracer]

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.

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?

[McCulloch]

When anyone tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.

If anyone is interested, read the entire essay. The twenty-five fallacies are interesting and could probably be cataloged from this debate site.

[TheOneAndOnly]

When anyone tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.

If anyone is interested, read the entire essay. The twenty-five fallacies are interesting and could probably be cataloged from this debate site.

I read it some time ago (it is where I remembered reading about Hume, which I referenced earlier). This, and other writings attributed to Shermer, should be required reading at the high school level. I'm sure it would not rid us of common ignorance and the like that prevail in society today, but it certainly wouldn't hurt.

[OnceConvinced]

I guess it all depends on how gullible you are or how trusting you are of the words of others. Some people can believe with little or no proof. That's the way they are. Others are more sceptical people, so need more. To put everyone in the same boat and claim that proof for one should be good enough for everyone, shows a lack of understanding of the differences between people. To treat everyone equally, extraordinary proof should be shown to all, as ordinary proof may not be enough.

[East of Eden]

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.

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?

I don't know about Goose, but I don't dismiss the miracles of other religions out of hand.