“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” sounds like an extraordinary claim to me, so where is the extraordinary evidence for this claim?
9 months ago
| 9
What if the claim that God exists is not extraordinary? What makes a claim extraordinary?
9 months ago | 25
Surely the same applies to your own unique existence! It’s extraordinary. Yet how many accept poor explanations? Species do not come from nothing, yet many accept they have.
9 months ago | 1
"Bernoulli's Fallacy - Aubrey Clayton" by Bayes@Lund ( https://youtu.be/EIPz7SJBO6g?feature=shared )
9 months ago | 0
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence....yes! That's why i don't believe in lottery winners, people getting struck by lightning or people getting bit by sharks. There's only rather ordinary evidence for these things. All irony & humor aside it's a pretty bad theory of knowledge. And, one could just deny anything claiming something to be "extraordinary". Back to humor: i find the claim, 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' extra-extraordinary!!!
9 months ago
| 2
An extraordinary claim is imho “I won the lottery”. Why do I need extraordinary evidence for that? Can’t I just show the winning ticket? That sounds like standard ordinary evidence to me.
9 months ago
| 3
This is truly sad. Ask any expert in epistemology or probability if we should give up either Bayes theorem or a quaint soundbyte from Carl Sagan (derived from Hume). Lol. Not even close.
9 months ago | 0
"if I see a picture of an alien, it must be photoshopped" Also "you have to follow the evidence and reason and logic, be rational bruh"
9 months ago
| 0
All claims, whether “extraordinary” or not, require sufficient evidence.
9 months ago
| 0
He had a valid point you are under delusion. May be ask jesus come to every person dream in the night and teach them bible I am sure most of atheist will agree it is extraordinary thing.
9 months ago | 0
I have no idea what a "God" is, and neither can anyone say they do without begging the question. So, this is a prime case requiring extraordinary evidence.
9 months ago | 1
Or you can just stop beating around the bush, and just demonstrate your God's existence.
9 months ago | 1
This is another cherry-picked comment to represent the absurdity of atheism in general. Obviously, Bayesian reasoning is sound by construction. But that doesn’t mean it’s without issues when it comes to practical application. If you allow editing the prior probabilities after the fact, you can tailor them to admit whatever conclusion you want. It’s worth comparing those prior probabilities to what you assign for other religions. Should you really be expected to investigate every religion that proposes a Heaven/Hell dichotomy? And if you did, would you give it the same credence as Christianity, off the bat?
9 months ago | 0
It's a useful heuristic for critical thinking. This is such an odd thing to "debunk". If the point is to encourage skepticism or thorough investigation, what is your issue?
9 months ago (edited) | 0
ReasonableFaithOrg
When you discard Bayesian probability to salvage the false claim that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
9 months ago | [YT] | 115