Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO: There has been many reported sightings of flying saucers. Do you believe that we have had visitors from space, yes not no? ... and why?

I assume you mean "Yes or No?" I'm agnostic when it comes to aliens visiting Earth, but would probably lean toward "No". I haven't studied the issue enough to form an educated opinion.

Are there any other questions that you want me to answer?

Vorkosigan

Only 2 would be extraordinary. But just because a claim is not extraordinary, doesn't mean that it is true. There's nothing extraordinary about saying "Jesus was a healer," there's just no way to demonstrate it solidly with the evidence we have at the moment.

Vorkosigan

madmax2976

Given the subjective nature of determining what is or is not extraordinary, or even to what degree things would be seen as extraordinary, I'm eager to see exactly what point is attempting to be made in this thread...

Kosh

I think point has something to do with special pleading.

But the thread definitely belongs in something more like S&S.

NOGO

Was the coran written by God and handed to Mohammad by angel Gabriel?
Did Mohammad split the moon into two?
Did the Buddha bodily rise to nirvana?

If you consider these claims to be extraordinary then tell us why?
If you don't consider these claims to be extraordinary then tell us why the evidence provided does not convince you?

Then tell us why your faith is special and that the same rules of extraordinary claim and evidence that you used above do not apply?

Family Man

How about because, while kangaroos are readily found, there is no solid evidence that Bigfoot exists?

Family Man

I think one of the misconceptions here is that ordinary claims must automatically be believed while extraordinary ones can never be believed.

The claim that a strange, unknown animal species exists isn't particularly extraordinary and can be proven by producing one of the species. Therefore, we can conclude that kangaroos exist but that Bigfoot probably doesn't. Ordinary evidence (or the lack thereof) suffices.

Extraordinary claims can be proven also, if sufficient evidence is given. A century ago, Einstein made some very extraordinary claims about the nature of the universe, and the reaction at first was quite sceptical. However, a great deal of evidence was amassed in favor of the theory and it was generally accepted (and fairly quickly too).

In other words, I'm not forced to believe in Bigfoot, even if it is an ordinary claim, if the evidence is not there.

The existence of a supernatural being able to contravene natural law is obviously an extraordinary claim. That theists like Polycarp and Metacrock try to knock it down shows plainly how far from the standard the evidence for god truly is.

--edited for grammar

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

NOGO

One last question.
Did we answer your original question?

FreeToThink

None of these things are particularly extraordinary, but the real crux of the problem is that you do not stop here. You undoubtedly wish to follow up these ordinary claims with the extraordinary claim that this Jesus was in fact the "Son of God" who died for our sins, etc. [insert Apostles Creed here]. And THAT is what requires the extraordinary evidence which Christians seem unable to provide.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO: One last question. Did we answer your original question?

Yes, but everyone seemed to give a different answer. This leads me to believe that skeptics have not formulated a test by which they can determine which claims are extraordinary. As MadMax implied, everyone is using some sort of subjective means in order to test the “extra-ordinariness” of a claim. Therefore, why can I not do the same thing and use my own standards?

It’s clear that CX, Vorkosigan, MadMax, and Toto use different criteria from one another in determining what is an extraordinary claim. Otherwise, they would not have given different answers. Which of them is right?