Having recently listened to a debate between Christian apologist Mike Licona and Atheist Matt Dillahunty, I felt compelled to comment on some of Mike's theistic assertions...
The context was regarding the validity of the supernatural being factual or possible to coorbarate the resurrection.
He argued that extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence and that we can go by the most likely explaination, his example that followed was that historians have throughout history explained what has happened, not using the methods of today such as empirical evidence but by going with what is most likely...
He said and I quote "Historians can investigate that Anthony loved Cleopatra" his proof was that he gave up time for her, he left battles for her and commuted suicide when believing she was dead.
Therefore we can assume that he must have loved her.
He also mentioned the Reichstag burnt down, and although we may not know or prove the cause we can assert it happened.
Now for me these are not extraordinary claims nor supernatural...
1 - Love is simply a chemical reaction in the brain and it happens so often that it is not extraordinary.
2 - Fires are so common unfortunately, this is why we have fire brigades/services.
Something that requires the suspension of the laws of nature IS extraordinary! And it has to be proven with a level of evidence that matches the level of the claim.
For example...
Premise 1 - Bob has a Gecko in his garage!
This could be taken at face value
Premise 2 - Bob has a Komodo Dragon in his garage!
Id need photo/video evidence minimum
Premise 3 - Bob has the Dragon Smaug in his garage..
This requires substantial proof
What does everyone feel about the debate about if extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
There is a problem with that idea. Most likely implies a magnitude. If you can calculate the magnitudes of the options, then I'd be tempted to agree with him; but typically that is impossible. Which just leads to people making shit up.
In my experience we all use the principle "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" in most of the things we do. But we all have blind spots where we refuse to apply it. If you refuse to apply it to religious claims, we call you a theist.
Indeed, this is why I added the caveat of the three premises... I wasn't implying it in a way of magnitude but rather that what goes against the laws of nature, which was premise three.
That's a good arguement... but what if i told you that I witnessed the supernatural through a vision in the sky THAT no one else seen but me?... should no one believe me because they didnt see it?
Sounds like a hallucination to me. And before you swear that it wasn't; how can you tell the difference between a vision and a hallucination? According to the DSM V, a hallucination is the "perception of an object or event (in any of the 5 senses) in the absence of an external stimulus"; which sounds just like a vision.
That you feel you witnessed it? I believe you now.
That it is proof of the supernatural? Nope.
I'll go even further Longwinded. You didn't see SHIT!
How about that?!
Prove it! Prove that you saw something supernatural in the sky!
Just as I thought.....BULLSHIT!
I would argue what is more likely...
1.You mistakenly saw something that could be attributed to be supernatural.
2. You was hallucinating
Or
3. The laws of nature suspended so only you could have this experience with no evidence to coorbarate it.
It's no different to a child seeing things in its room at night... what is more likely...
1. The child was ill and mistaken something it saw.
2. A shadow cast on an object leaving a shadow that could look scary to a child
3. An actual monster was present.
I don't mean for this to be belittling by the way.
I think it is very important to question ones own cognitive faculties if one witness phenomena that appears to be supernatural. So many factors from chemicals to emotions can effect brain function.
@Jakquai: "So many factors from chemicals to emotions can effect brain function."
That's very true. I wonder how many religions started with an accidental acid trip of some kind. One of the most likely culprits is ergot, a fungus that grows on rye. It was the original source of LSD. Eating bread contaminated with ergot will take you straight down the rabbit hole into Wonderland. It's been blamed for the Salem witch trials.