Extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence

[Sajit]

This is a link to a christian apologetics website.

http://www.carm.org/apologetics/evidence...y-evidence

comments?

[Lije]

(01-May-2010, 10:52 AM)Sajit Wrote: This is a link to a christian apologetics website.

http://www.carm.org/apologetics/evidence...y-evidence

comments?

The entire argument hinges on the premise that Jesus's resurrection happened 2000 years ago and it is not possible to experimentally validate that event. From there, the author argues that atheists are stupid for demanding experimental proof for an one time event that had happened in the past. He is conveniently blinded to the fact that there are other extraordinary claims about God that can be subjected to experimental validation. Bible, prayer and saints are some obvious candidates.

[Ajita Kamal]

OK, let's do this.

Presuppositions:

Quote:In Jesus' resurrection, for example, Christians presuppose that God exists and that He could easily have raised Jesus from the dead. The evidence of fulfilled prophecy, eyewitness records, and changed lives of the disciples is enough to convince many people who believe in God that Jesus rose from the dead. This is a logical conclusion based on the presupposition and the evidence.

1. Claiming that 'fulfilled prophecy' is evidence for the prophecy being fulfilled is just fucking stupid. In formal philosophical circles its known as a fucking stupid tautology. (Tautology is also known as a circular argument).

2. There are no eyewitness records except characters in a work of fantasy that also include a talking snake.

3. "changed lives of the disciples" .. and we're back to the tautology. Xian apologetics is as childish as Hindu apologetics. In fact, that's an insult to children everywhere.

Quote:"Atheists, on the other hand, would negate the resurrection by default since their presupposition that there is no God1 would require that God involvement cannot occur."

'No god' is the null hypothesis. So far, nobody has come up with evidence to suggest that the null hypothesis is wrong. The Christian like the rationalist has the presupposition that there are no butterflies in a pink submarine on mars. The atheist extends that same level of incredulity to religion and includes in his/her mental arsenal the presupposition that there is no god.

What would qualify as extraordinary evidence?

Quote:When debating skeptics, I often ask them to tell me what would qualify as extraordinary evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Generally, nothing sensible is offered.

Anyone can claim that there occurred a historical event that is pretty much untestable. So why are atheists asking for evidence for this claim? What we can do when such extraordinary claims are made is study the mechanism and process by which the alleged event could have taken place. We can count the number of violations of the laws of physics and biology, and ask for evidence that supports a mechanism by which those laws could be broken. This is analyzing scientific likelihood. The concept of 'extraordinary evidence' is closely tied to the concept of scientific likelihood. In science, when a known scientific phenomenon is being challenged, the explanation of that violation must be at least as scientifically tenable as the one it is replacing. In the case of the resurrection, the evidence will have to be so great that even the greatest spinners of tales cannot make it up.

More later...