Extraordinary Claims Do NOT Require Extraordinary Evidence
Here's why.
First of all, the concept of "extraordinariness" is itself wholly subjective, and susceptible to bias. No one can really agree on it, simply because what may be extraordinary for you may not be for me. It's almost entirely subjective, like the concept of beauty (actually, beauty has a greater claim to being based in reality than the extraordinary, if only because most people will generally agree on what is attractive and what is not; there are at least some standards).
Secondly, what's really required for most claims is just evidence of any kind to establish its credibility or truth. You will not hear in a courtroom, for example, anyone complaining that a prosecution's evidence isn't extraordinary enough, because that would just leave everyone baffled. The evidence may be strong or it may be weak, it may be convincing or not convincing, and it may circumstantial or pertinent and definitive, but it will never be "extraordinary" (whatever that means).
I say all of the above at this point in time, because I've once again been asked by an atheist here on SW to provide some "extraordinary evidence", because apparently belief in the existence, the reality of a transcendent explanation for the existence of our very reality, is just too extraordinary for him to accept.
Update Edit: No one thus far has presented a well-thought-out, sensible case for why they believe the concept of extraordinariness can, and perhaps should, be applied when it comes to evidence (NOT proof).
Predictably, the atheists on this site have chosen to deflect from the issue by waffling on about things that aren't even relevant to the topic.
It's sad, disappointing, but entirely to be expected by now.
First of all, the concept of "extraordinariness" is itself wholly subjective, and susceptible to bias. No one can really agree on it, simply because what may be extraordinary for you may not be for me. It's almost entirely subjective, like the concept of beauty (actually, beauty has a greater claim to being based in reality than the extraordinary, if only because most people will generally agree on what is attractive and what is not; there are at least some standards).
Secondly, what's really required for most claims is just evidence of any kind to establish its credibility or truth. You will not hear in a courtroom, for example, anyone complaining that a prosecution's evidence isn't extraordinary enough, because that would just leave everyone baffled. The evidence may be strong or it may be weak, it may be convincing or not convincing, and it may circumstantial or pertinent and definitive, but it will never be "extraordinary" (whatever that means).
I say all of the above at this point in time, because I've once again been asked by an atheist here on SW to provide some "extraordinary evidence", because apparently belief in the existence, the reality of a transcendent explanation for the existence of our very reality, is just too extraordinary for him to accept.
Update Edit: No one thus far has presented a well-thought-out, sensible case for why they believe the concept of extraordinariness can, and perhaps should, be applied when it comes to evidence (NOT proof).
Predictably, the atheists on this site have chosen to deflect from the issue by waffling on about things that aren't even relevant to the topic.
It's sad, disappointing, but entirely to be expected by now.
