Extraordinary Claims Do Not Require Extraordinary Evidence (Featuring Dr. Tim McGrew)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лип 2024
- Carl Sagan popularized the slogan "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Skeptics use this phrase like a cudgel when arguing against historical miracle claims. But is this pithy slogan true? This is an excerpt from a talk by Dr. Tim McGrew of Western Michigan entitled "How to Think About Miracles." Dr. McGrew shows this famous slogan is too slippery and generally unhelpful. It is not a good argument against miracle claims like the resurrection of Jesus.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Patreon / isjesusalive . You can also do a one-time donation at paypal.me/isjesusalive
Original talk: • "How to Think About Mi...
See Dr McGrew's website for a host of helpful resources on historical apologetics: historicalapologetics.org/htt...
See Q and A with Cameron Bertuzzi for more technical details on how to respond to this slogan and Hume's argument: • Do Extraordinary Claim...
Visit Tim's wife Lydia's awesome UA-cam channel for more awesome arguments on why you can trust the Gospels: / @lydiamcgrewchannel
A special thank you to all my supporters on Patreon who help make videos like these possible. www.patreon.com/isjesusalive
Here’s my ideal response to the Argumentum Sagani (or whatever it’s called)
1. Extraordinary is a subjective term, what is extraordinary for one person is common sense and mundane for another. In fact, if you asked the vast majority of humans throughout history, the claim that there was NO God would have been viewed as much more extraordinary than the claim that there was one.
2. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is a claim which establishes the validity of all other claims, which seems pretty extraordinary to me, yet we have no evidence for it.
0 living people have witnessed an appearance of god
@@isidoreaerys8745 That is quite the extraordinary claim, my friend! I hope the evidence is extraordinary too (:
The thing is that claiming a God does or doesn't exist are both extraordinary claims and if one makes the claim a God exists they need extraordinary evidence to support that existence just like a person making the claim God doesn't exists has to have extraordinary evidence to support it. The only person that is not extraordinary in that situation is the person that takes the neutral stance on it. I will believe a God exists upon getting the extraordinary evidence for as well as taking the position they they'll believe a God doesn't exist upon giving extraordinary evidence for a God not existing.
Making a snarky BS claim like extraordinary is subjective takes you down a toxic path where anything and everything is subjective as anything that you may think is objective one can find people that would not agree with it.
@@aaronrumph3291 My claim still stands that calling one view 'extraordinary' is a subjective statement since it reflects your opinions about it and not some unique attribute the claim possesses. Calling that response "snarky BS" isn't going to get you anywhere, and I've got no clue how you derived that 'path' from the claim itself.
What's stopping me from calling the claim that "Making a snarky BS claim like extraordinary is subjective takes you down a toxic path..." extraordinary and demanding high levels of evidence?
@@vaskaventi6840 Except no it doesn't because the only example of an extraordinary claim you can come up with as an example of extraordinary being subjective is a universal understand as extraordinary claim.Can you give one example of an extraordinary claim that wouldn't be objectively extraordinary.
A few hours ago, I was arguing with someone about the existence of Jesus and the validity of the NT. When he saw that he was losing the argument, suddenly he said: "extraordinary claims require the extraordinary evidence"
I said: "well no, studying history doesn't matter how extraordinary your claim is, it just depends on the scientific method of studying and not having a double standard in studying it."
Correct. Double standards. Christians use an epidemiology to believe in the resurrection that they would never use otherwise. That's why Christians think the evidencesv they have for the resurrection are good evidences. One for All: the empty tomb (that doesn't exist). How do you explain the empty tomb other than Jesus resurrected?!???! That's the most hilarious of all
@@piage84 i like how you're talking about double standard in studying history but say that the empty tomb doesn't exist lmao, irony is my breakfast and you've just added to my plate.
@@keysersoze4658 okay. So Prove that Leprechauns don’t exist.
@@ramigilneas9274 there would have been no tomb. The corpses were left on the crosses to be devoured by scavengers and to serve as an ominous warning of the consequences of sedition against Rome.
Give an example of that double standard just one example
"Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidence."
"But why?"
You are correct, they do not. I have been resurrected as the messiah. Obey me.
@@UnconventionalReasoning did you feed few thousand people with few fish and a loaf of bread and we can go and ask them about it? Did you cure a blind and we can go and speak with him? Did you raise someone from the dead and we can go and ask him? Did you walk on water and there are w few chaps who can testimony? Did you tell few friends that you're going to die and resurrect the third day and they testimony that on top of all the previous ones?
@@mwas661 There are stories about me doing all of that. Just as there are stories about Jesus doing all of that. Stories...
@@UnconventionalReasoning You can say that they're just myths all you want, but there is actual evidence for the bible and deciding to just ignore it is the work of a fool
@@onionsans The only "evidence" for the Bible is based on the Bible itself.
It's far more extraordinary that order, life and intelligence came as the result of sheer random chance from chaos and disorder that were tuned by random variables (such as the initial force of the big bang, gravity, weak force, strong force, and electromagnetism) in such a way that their perfect harmony allowed for a Goldylocks-esque scenario where the universe didn't expand so fast that nothing could react, yet fast enough that it didn't collapse back in on itself as matter came into being when nothing happened to nothing creating everything- than to believe there was a deity behind the sheer miracle of existence, the miracle of original abiogenesis, and the miracle of intelligent thought which wrote down predictions that were later fulfilled according to historical testimony that passes modern day collusion tests.
OR MAYBE you dont know enough about these subjects to have an opinion/
just sayin
I mean, you COULD run out a list of long debunked, shallow 'objections' that only demonstarte your ignorance OR you could remain silent, having nothing useful or even true to say.......................
And so now we have something you propose as extraordinary-the universe itself-which you suggest can only be explained by something more extraordinary-a deity. So why is it not more extraordinary that this deity exists without having been created than the universe itself? We have no independently verifiable information about the properties or traits of said deity. How could we possibly know its existence isn't infinitely more extraordinary than the universe itself? And if said deity needed to be created by a different deity, what problem is its proposal solving?
There is no reason that the Universe could have not come into existence without Humans existing in it there is no reason to believe that Reptiles could not evolved into sentient intelligent Creatures
Going straight for the ad hominem. Strong debate method. @@SwolllenGoat
@@cutethulu_xo boo hoo
tell me, is it really just an 'ad hom' attack if its TRUE?
thanks for playing, eh?
This is unlawfully underrated.
Right?!
nah
its kinda dumb, actually
Taking a little philosophical side journey before I dig back into the reliability of the gospels. I should have a couple more videos rebutting Hume's argument against miracles.
Can you give the technical explanation with with the conditional probabilities? I wrote my bachelor's thesis about the revision of probabilistic knowledge and this looks interesting. I would expect that extraordinary claims (low prior probability) require not quite egregiously extraordinary evidence but at least a little better evidence than claims with a higher prior.
@@siquod that would be in Tim's talk in the video I put on a card. I probably won't get *that* technical. I will be dealing with Hume's move to pit the laws of nature against our ability to believe miracles as well as the second part of his argument.
I want to see it.
@@siquod The probability of something happening doesn't really serve a practical purpose. Take cards for example it is a 1 in 64 change of pulling a certain card, but when your actually pulling a card you have an hundred percent change of pulling a card with Ace, 1-10, Jack, Queen, and King. So the fact that a person pulled an Ace of spades, a 1 of clubs, a 5 of hearts, 10 of clubs, 2 of hearts, 6 of diamonds, Jack of clubs, 8 of spades, Queen of diamonds, and a king of hearts is wholly unremarkable but if you were to take it as a probability it is remarkable. Why because when drawing a card you are not expecting any one card and as you continue to draw you don't expect to draw the same card. It is once you try to rationalize a wholly random event that that event seems improbable. I'd saw the most extraordinary thing is the thing that is difficult to actually make a probability of.
@@aaronrumph3291 But prophesy would counter against that, right? Not saying that the prophesy in the Bible is true, but that if prophesy happened ad then it was fulfilled, wouldn’t that be justification for the fulfillment of a miracle, if it truly did defy the natural laws of the world?
If miracles were common then they wouldn't be called miracles. The miracle of the resurrection was one so amazing because it never happened in the history of mankind.
@@ramigilneas9274 Can you give some specific examples of them and who witnessed their alleged resurrection compared to Jesus's resurrection witnessed by hundreds of people of whom many suffered horrible deaths because they refused to recant what they witnessed?
@@John14-6... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection#Ancient_religions_in_the_Near_East
@@ramigilneas9274 You really don't know history do you. They literally have the church father's writings who were taught by the disciples. If those aren't enough there are even Jewish and Roman historians talking about Jesus and his disciples telling of how they were murdered for their faith. We have more historical documents for Jesus and his disciples than any other ancient people we learn about and they were written only years after their deaths. You don't question the history of people like Caesar or Alexander the Great yet the written accounts of them were written hundreds of years after their deaths. Just admit there's no amount of evidence that would make you consider the validity of the Gospel because you don't WANT to believe
@@ramigilneas9274 That is fine you can pick and choose the history that suits your own beliefs but you will have to stand before God some day to give an account as to why you rejected his Son he gave to be sacrificed for your sins. If you objectively researched the Gospels without your own prejudices you would find plenty of evidence. People don't want Jesus to be real because they want to be their own gods and enjoy their sins not because there's no evidence
Love this channel!
Them - "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence"
Me - "Where did the universe come from?"
Them - "It must have been made by nothing - not by God"
Me - "That's quite an extraordinary claim. Got evidence?"
Them - "Not yet, but we're really working hard to find anything"
Me - "Why would you believe something extraordinary for which there is absolutely no evidence?"
Yes they do. If I tell you I see a dinosaur in my backyard, you would say poor me I am hallucinating.
Did you watch the video?
Hologram, or you found a fossil, or you think birds are dinosaurs. Therr are many possibilities. Scientists dismissed meteorites for a long time because 'rocks falling from the sky' was dismissed by bias, even though they had credible reports.
@@truthisbeautiful7492 i don't think he did
The problem for miracles is that there is no independently verifiable evidence of any of them whatsoever. I would consider literally any independently verifiable evidence whatsoever to be extraordinary in comparison to what has thus far been offered (nothing).
Except, there is. The are medically documented miracles. Check out Craig keener’s book Miracles today. He details a number of them.
@@darklorddork8520 List one and explain how you know it is a miracle.
I heard this claim yesterday, made by my colleague, and wasn't sure how to answer (though I knew there was an answer). Thanks for this video!
What do you mean you weren't sure how to answer if you have an extraordinary claim then you very well better have extremely good evidence for it. This is just basic knowledge if you claim you have a dog I'm not going to need much evidence for that has millions of people have a dog and it wouldn't be out of the ordinary if you did own a dog. Now if you said you owned a dog that could fly and shoot laser from its eyes I'm going to need to see this dog, see this dog fly, and see this dog shoot laser from its eyes to believe it. Pretty simple right the more unbelievable the claim the more evidence you need for it.
If you claim a people can resurrect themself from death I'm going to have to see a person die then come back to live and I'm talking not just a near death experience where a person hearts stopped beating for a couple minutes
The answer is always simple. No it doesn't. All any claim requires is variable evidence. For example you say a man rose from the dead, all the evidence anyone needs is to see that person alive and walking around after knowing that they were dead. If the person hearing the evidence chooses not to believe it then it's no longer an issue of evidence, it's an issue of the hearer's choice not to believe.
@@aaronrumph3291 that's fallacy, you can't see anybody who died, so you say they didn't exist? Einstein was a hoax! I suppose you don't believe that Julius Cesar existed (we only have about 10 documents that he lived), on the other hand we only have around 5000 manuscript about Jesus starting as soon as 20 years after his death.
Clicked on Dr. McGrew's website and is no longer there. Are there books written by him? If so, would you please provide titles.
Claims DO require evidence.
Yes.
How..? How do you not have a million subscribers?? This is high caliber stuff, sir! Thank you.
@@anotherperspective8263 consider your hopes dashed, Then
@@anotherperspective8263 troll on good buddy, troll on
@@anotherperspective8263 that's exactly how I feel about evolution
@@anotherperspective8263 that's why it's so sad.. there's so many books about evolution and not one of them has any substance, whereas the bible is simply limitless
@@anotherperspective8263 I wouldn't say it if it wasn't true. Plus I know statements like that get you guys all hot and bothered and i find that hilarious, so.. bonus.
Its cute you think a character count is an obstacle for a living document.
How many atheists blindly repeat this slogan by their Lord and savior Carl Sagan but reject everything biblical by default? Deep down they just prefer to feel smarter than though and probably don't like the implications of a God that judges their actions.
God is the most selfish “thing” to have ever existed, idk why people still argue that he is all loving
@@macmac1022 Yeah, using catch phrases like bullets to put down the other side and prop oneself up.
@@macmac1022 But Aids kills you, slowly.
Weird that a sheep is literally projecting disdain at blind allegiance to authority and spitting out tired cliches when that’s literally the entire Christian world view.
At least smart is somewhat tangible.
Sin is obviously an arbitrary fantasy and pretending to understand it makes you blind to reason.
@@isidoreaerys8745 I don't disdain allegiance to something greater. I'm a sheep of God because I've come to trust him. The criticism of mine was towards the arrogance of atheists mocking that very thing about us, meanwhile, they repeat Carl Sagan inspired atheist cliches without self-awareness, thinking themselves as intellectually superior, while being sheep also. Irony. That's the point and you've missed it.
Enjoyed the short, snappy presentation.
Would it make any difference if, instead of saying "Extraordinary evidence", we were to modify the statement to require "Indisputable evidence"?
The commonly used statement is more of a strawman, and probably mainly used only because it's catchier. It does perhaps indicate intellectual sloppiness, but that doesn't really disprove anything.
(I think this change would at least derail the "winning lottery ticket" counterexample. A lottery ticket is relatively "unextraordinary" - I can easily purchase a similar one - but it must also be indisputable in the sense that if the lottery organiser is willing to pay out on it, they must be satisfied that it's valid, and who's going to argue with that assessment?)
To say that something is "indisputable" is to say that you cannot dispute, that is argue, about it. Apart from mathematical propositions, it's hard to imagine anything that people can't argue about. Certainly the evidence for any historical assertion can, and often is, disputed. So all you accomplish if you use your formulation is to say that the assertion that a miracle had occurred would require evidence of a kind that simply cannot exist, which is even worse than the argumentum sagani. It would simply be an excuse for closing the mind to possible realities that one doesn't want to think about.
The winning lottery ticket example doesn't help. The fact that the lottery organizers are willing to pay out on it doesn't mean that the evidence for it is indisputable. The ticket could still be disputed in principle (it could, after all, be a very high quality forgery), but the evidence is good enough to convince the organizers, and that is sufficient to the purpose.
@@topogigio6490 I see.. maybe “indisputable” is simply the wrong word.
I hoped it at least be a more objective description than “extraordinary”, but from what you’re saying it’s much too strong.
What word do you think works better here?
@@MatthewFearnley Maybe “clear” evidence?
@@MrBrendanRizzo "it says it right here, Jesus rose from the dead" it doesn't get any clearer than that.
Personally, I think Extraordinary Arguments require Extraordinary Definitions...
An extraordinary claim of winning the lottery and beating the extraordinary odds only requires a simple lottery ticket as evidence.
Having a valid winning lottery ticket is pretty extraordinary. Supernatural claims require supernatural evidence. Are you convinced by blurred pictures of Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster?
If I claim to have a Lamborghini and my only evidence was a picture of me with one on the street, you’d be wise to expect more evidence. Now make it eyewitness written 50 years after the facts in a overly edited book.
@@ronytheronin7439 The ticket itself is not extraordinary. In fact it's pretty commonplace. Seeing as how there are millions like it. The only difference being it has the winning numbers on it. Before the numbers were randomly chosen by lottery official it was exactly like all the other tickets. Also, there are sometimes other tickets like it. So no it's not extraordinary. The action of the balls at random being chosen and matching your numbers on the ticket may be the extraordinary part, but the evidence you need to show you're a winner is not. Also, why did you change the saying from extraordinary to supernatural? Maybe to harden the criteria? No, I'd need more solid evidence for the bigfoot, loch Ness, and your Lambo. Although, if you did have one I'd like a ride please. I will say that a friend told me a story of another mutual friend that had purchased one just to turn around and sell it for more, but not without taking a ride in it of course. I never saw pictures or evidence, but the source was reliable, and the story believable based on the characters. You're mistaken about the Bible being heavily edited. The manuscripts are copies yes. There are differences and errors even. However, this strengthens the idea of a reliable source. Because we can compare the copies to other copies and see the differences. If all the copies were exactly the same then we'd have more of an issue about reliability. We also have other sources that also corroborate the same ideas. Even external sources. Historically, the Bible is set up as the most believeable document. Also, archeological evidence continues to agree with the Bible. For someone to ignore these facts and evidence seems like a less rational person that believes conspiracy theories more than the expert proven data. One more thing I'll point out is that God is a being outside space, time, and matter. If you're looking for direct scientific evidence for God then you have a big problem. I will say though God does affect the natural world so you may find indirect evidence of Him. DNA is one big one in my mind. It is information. Information is only known to come from a mind. If you see the words "I love Sarah" written in the sand on a beach. Do you believe the waves washing over the beach could have done that given X amount of times? Did the information just pop into existence from nothing? Or did it come from a mind?
DNA isnt really a message though. Its just chemicals, dioxyribonucleic acid. It only becomes a message when we interpret it in a way we understand, by attributing letters to the different bases and what-not of DNA. So an intelligent creator isnt needed for DNA to exist.
@@austinlincoln3414 It is information. I didn't say it was a message. It is much more complex than a simple message. There is no other way to look at it. The body uses the information in DNA to create proteins, define the structure of your body, define timelines for your body, replicate and repair itself. It is a code that is more advanced than most if not all current computer code. You're not convincing when you say it's just chemicals that becomes a message when we interpret. That'd be similar to saying a book is just ink on a page until I learn to read and open it. If we didn't interpret it will still provide information to the body to do what it does day in and day out. Our observation is irrelevant to DNA's function. Are you saying it's comparable to the particles double-slit experiment? I'd say you need to provide some evidence for that line of thought.
@@JohnsonJLB archeological evidence does NOT confirm the Bible. We have no record of Egyptian and Chinese civilizations being interrupted by a flood. The Jews left no traces of their 40 year wandering in exodus. Etc.
the “experts” who produced the publication stating that “all information comes from a mind” were all Creationists with ties to the discovery institute and other right wing Christian fundamentalist think tanks. ua-cam.com/video/eJCmerK0DjQ/v-deo.html
Great job illustrating this excerpt, and great excerpt!
Hah, Tim is great! 💙👊💪
The Argumentum Sagani is just hilarious.
Hey, I read a bit of your article on the Non-Alchemist. Do you ever think you're going to ever respond to him more or Matthew Hartke's blog on the resurrection?
Perhaps. It might be a while and if I did, it would be in writing. Hartke and I agree that minimal facts is a weak approach. I take a more maximal data approach.
@@TestifyApologetics Rad. I would also like to ask what other way is there to argue for the resurrection.
Establish the genuineness and reliability of the gospels first and it is easier, IMO
The ideal would be to require the same rigor of proof for any claim. But in practice people don't do that. For example, if someone told you that it rained yesterday and that there are fairies in Jupiter, which of these statements would require further explanation for you to believe?
Tim explicitly covered this but here is the Thomas Sherlock quote again.
"But would you say, this case excluded all human testimony, and that men could not possibly discern whether one with whom they conversed familiarly was alive or no? On what ground could you say this? A man rising from the grave is an object of sense, and can give the same evidence of his being alive as any other man in the world can give. So that a resurrection considered only as a fact to be proved by evidence, is a plain case; it requires no greater ability in the witnesses than that they be able to distinguish between a man dead and a man alive; a point in which I believe every man living thinks himself a judge. *I do allow that this case and others of like nature require more evidence to give them credit than ordinary cases do. You may therefore require more evidence in these than in other cases; but it is absurd to say that such cases admit no evidence, when the things in question are manifestly objects of sense."*
@@TestifyApologetics yes, is wrong to say that "such cases admit no evidence". I agree with you on this. But it is right to say that these cases need further explanation to be credible. So, if someone uses the argument "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" to refuses any explanation, yes he is wrong. But the phrase itself is correct.
@@piruloluke people who fled for their lives, after an a event immediately willing to die, is extraordinary evidence.
@@arcguardian No, it's not. If we consider this as sufficient evidence, we will also have to believe that Jesus was just a human who had nothing divine, since Giordano Bruno, for example, died for sustaining, among other ideas such as the impossibility of the trinity, this view. A person's certainty about a belief and his willingness to die for it is not proof of anything.
@@piruloluke it's not just their willingness to die, ur missing the first half of the evidence buddy, the fact none of them were willing to die. So far the attempts to explain this away carry no weight*, and are embarrassing. Why would any reasonable person suggest mass hallucination? They've run out of excuses. Jesus is risen.
First!!!!
And wooooooooow,what a video👏👏👏.
Oh,man!!!Thank u for making these videos.
We do appreciate your effort(personally me)👏👏👏😊✨.
(Keep it on)
If men demand compelling evidence they are demanding irrefutable evidence and demanding in effect God make them believe with or without their being willing. We should perhaps as mere men want others to love us not because of threats or bribes but because of who we are. If that be not enough, then the problem lies with them and not us.
The problem is that we only have 2000-year-old reports of the Resurrection and that Stephen, the two James, and Peter witnessed the Risen Christ, and that Paul, an enemy of the Early Church, had visions of Him, and accepted martyrdom for those beliefs. The reports could be fakes, the witnesses could've lied or been mistaken, etc. I am a Christian. I believe, I have faith.
Thank you for the video, Lord Jesus bless you.
I just want to point out that everything after part 3 is not a person making that argument would make. We all know what an extraordinary claim is. it is any claim that could not have a scientific explanation: leprechauns, Unicorns, a virgin birth, someone being resurrected, etc are all extraordinary claims and in order to proof those claims you would have to present us with a real life leprechaun or unicorn, or a woman getting pregnant without having sex, or a person that has died and was resurrected not just claim them happening.
You make and extraordinary claim and can give extraordinary evidence then you have proved your extraordinary claim. Nobody is going to say your wrong about people being able to be resurrected if you have evidence that is undeniable of people resurrecting or women giving birth without having sex
Indeed. If you have to completely alter the argument in order to argue against it, you've made a strawman. That's all
Yeah our argument goes like this: God is real and He gives us teachers to tell us how we can stay with Him forever
that extraordinary claim has the extraordinary evidence of Jesus' resurrection. That event is a historical fact that we can use normal means to double check. This "chain of extraordinariness" cannot go on forever, because at least at the last step, you need ordibary light entering your eyes and/or ordinary sound entering your ears to recieve the evidence. At some point the evidence needs to become ordinary. There only needs to be one extraordinary event backed up by solid ordinary evidence for you to logically believe in it (because the original claim that requires evidence is not by itself evidence).
As an example, Peter Higgs' extraordinary claim is that there's a quantum field that gives particles their mass. The extraordinary evidence was the creation of the Higgs boson, but the even reached the scientists through an ordinary analysis of the decay products as detected by the LHC as it does daily and calculatef ordinarily. It reached the press through an ordinary interview to an ordibary scientist and I read it in an ordinary newspaper. That is good enough, an extraordinary event happened and we got to know about it through the means we always use to determine if an event happened or not.
@@tafazzi-on-discord the problem is you can't use scripture as that evidence otherwise I can do the same for Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, etc by saying everything in it happened because the those books document the events in Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter books.
@@aaronrumph3291 There is both internal and external evidence that lets us know modern fiction is fiction. The external and internal evidence for the Gospels points to them being written and read as historical accounts.
Also you missed the correct workflow. My claim is not "the Bible is true", my claim is "God exists and He wants to save us". The evidence is the entire salvation history, most notably Jesus' resurrection. We can only know about the past through accounts, we can use regular methods to evaluate the reliability of the accounts of those past events to discover their more than acceptible reliability.
You can't move the goalpost, I am saying that my claim is "God exists and He told us how we can be saved by Him"
@@tafazzi-on-discord sorry you can't just pick and choice between books which you want to decide is fiction or not especially when we aren't talking historical works which the Bible is not a historical book but spiritual. There is some historical things in it just like with say the Harry Potter books among the several fictional elements
Wow.. well said Tim. Such a great argument.
Hay Testify!! Question? Is there not a second part to the Extraordinary evidence claim that undercuts the way most internet trolls use it? It seam to remember something about that , but its been way too long ago, so is there?
Hmm. I'm sorry, not sure what you're referring to. Do you remember a piece of it?
No, what you got to remember the statement "extraordinary claims needs an extraordinary evidence" statement isn't an argument all it means is that you are making a very huge claim and they are saying that you better have the amount of evidence needed to support that claim
Love Dr. McGrew!
This! This video is key. I have heard this all the time on the Atheist Experience. I’ve always said wouldn’t a piece extraordinary evidence then itself also require another piece of extraordinary evidence causing an infinite regression of needing more evidence to show that the previous evidence is justified? How is that not moving the goalpost?
That’s what the Dillahunty Dodger does best, bro. Remember, he’s a magician by trade. To be a good one, you have to master the art of _misdirection._ Which he has. He ducks and dodges and twists and turns, and his gullible followers lap it up because they want to.
Simple as that.
@@Pumpkin_Lich I have no problem at all with your version. In fact we should replace the extraordinary claims/extraordinary evidence meme with what you said. I would phrase it this way:
All claims require sufficient evidence. Otherwise they are mere assertions.
Probably too obvious, but you get the point.
Just one thing:
What claim are you claiming is unbelievable? That God exists? If so, why is that unbelievable?
@@Pumpkin_Lich what is the burden of proof?
Here is what people mean by extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ordinary claims AKA events that have been observed to happen often require little proof of a rather common nature, sometimes just the word of mouth is enough.
Example: If you say you saw a bird smashing into your window yesterday, I might ask a proof like the body of said bird( a common object) or depending on the circumstances just take your word for it and believe you anyways. Nothing of a rare or unlikely nature is required for me to believe you.
But extraordinary claims AKA events that have been rarely or never observed in reality do require equally rare or never seen before evidence to be believed.
Example. If you say you saw a fairy smash into your window yesterday, your word of mouth is certainly not gonna be enough. An evidence just as rare as a fairy smashing into a window is required, like the body of a fairy. Without that no word of mouth or written word, or even video evidence( could be an effect) will ever be enough. Extraordinary evidence( body of a fairy) is essential for your claim to be believed.
This is why no passage of your Bible, no man or woman's testimony, no personal experiences will ever be enough for a rational person to believe Jesus walked on water or came back from the dead. Those are "ordinary evidence". We need extraordinary evidence AKA Jesus himself, or at least the record of someone coming back from the dead.
2:41 Who has a stop sign with 6 sides rather than 8?
It should be "Historical claims require historical evidence." Christians do not need to prove that the miracles were extraordinary, they just need to show people that the events which are considered miracles were recorded and testified historically.
I want to hear the rest of this lecture.
It is on the end screen and in the description
@@TestifyApologetics Thank you. Didn't spot the name, but I saw the name and have been listening to his one on undesigned coincidences. It's really good.
@@inukithesavage828 Tim is a smart guy!
@@TestifyApologetics He really is. I've been hunting out stuff on undesigned coincidences for a while, and it's amazing proof. Sadly, most atheists aren't inclined to listen to anything complicated.
@@inukithesavage828 Undesigned coincidences is what got me really interested in historical apologetics
and Amen
Huh? Too much too quickly, like a stage magician's distracting patter.
Damn, son. Much respect.
The biggest assumption to example stated here is that everything written in the Bible is unfalsifiable and hence can be used as an evidence. When people who are not theists say ECREE, they are also challenging this assumption.
Extraordinary claims require *sufficient evidence*
Most likely the apologist would then quibble on the meaning of “sufficient”. We should say “exclusive” evidence, as in, it precludes any possibility except the miracle claim.
Dr. McGrew is awesome!
This was beautiful! It deserves to be advertised, translated, and shared with my friends……😐……You know what? Let me get on that! Just umm probably in reverse order 😅
Has anyone ever seen extraordinary evidence?
Also are You in a classroom? Why is there an echo?
This is Dr. Tim McGrew and he was in an auditorium when he gave the lecture. I tried to clean it up as best as I could.
Ok Nice
Hey i'm trying to get into the new testament can You recomend me all the scholars You use when You make Your videos? Can You make me a List so I can check them it out
*Check them out*
I'd like a Spaceballs-based meme where Dark Helmet is told, "The Christians' arguments for the resurrection of Jesus are too much for us! Should we prepare for Warped Logic?"
DH: "No, that's too slow. We'll have to go right to...Ludicrous Proof!"
The next scene is of DH hanging on for dear life, with the caption, "Ludicrous Proof: Because Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence."
It's not that the Christians arguments are too much for us; it is that they are not enough!
Take the empty tomb, for example. Why would you assume a dead person walked out, rather than the body be stolen? Your faith blinds you, my friend
@@onjulraz754 Who stole the body, then? The disciples ran away, and they would probably have been facing Roman soldiers. Even assuming they could have defeated the soldiers, removed the stone, and removed the body,
1. they would certainly have had casualties, and that would've meant extra corpses to remove and/or injuries to conceal. Both would have been dead giveaways.
2. They also would have killed or injured the soldiers, which also would have left evidence. There seems to have been no such evidence.
3. Where did they put the body (-ies)?
(Also: dereliction of duty tended to be a capital offence. If the soldiers did fall asleep or accept a bribe, they would have been executed. Not worth it.)
The women might somehow have drugged the soldiers or gotten them drunk, but why didn't they mention that? Soldiers would certainly have looked women over carefully and been able to ID them later. No such story exists.
Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus might have tried something, but the most sensible move would have been just to pretend to put Jesus' body in the tomb. I doubt they foresaw the whole sealing the tomb and posting a guard thing, and the Romans would've checked the body before sealing the tomb. Also, why did the soldiers run away from the tomb? How did they know the body was gone?
Neither the Sanhedrin nor the Romans would have taken the body.
The guards went to the Sanhedrin rather than their own people (probable v. certain death). If their story was clearly just an excuse for dereliction/corruption, just expose them. But they told a story to dangerous to be noised abroad; they must be given another story and allowed to spread it. So the Sanhedrin got them off.
The only alternative I see to divine intervention is a godlike intervention--by ETs or time travelers would foresee or know historically that Christianity would lead to social and cultural advances (including science) and incept us for our own good. I'm going with divine intervention. Less complicated.
@@stephenrice2063 do you have evidence there was a body, or a tomb? The book of Thomas doesn't mention guards at all, they were added by later writers trying to make the story more interesting.
@@stephenrice2063 If the only alternative to see to a missing body is time travel rather than doubting a centuries old fiction, i can't help you.
@@onjulraz754 Apocrypha books are considered “apocryphal” for specific reasons. What are yours for following that specific text more than the Synoptics?
wow
let that sink in
I haven’t watched the video yet, so I ask that I be forgiven if I’m speaking out of turn or foolishly- but I think that if one gives an extraordinary claim, and another asks for extraordinary evidence, then the one who asks for evidence ought also to be willing to allow extraordinary research. In other words, how many atheists, believing that the existence of God is a claim too extraordinary to be believed, are the slightest bit willing to engage in an aptly extraordinary form of “researching” God: genuine attempts at conversation with and listening for the voice of God Himself (through prayer)? Not one Christian was ever saved purely by reading words in a book and deciding for themselves that they were true. There has to be an interaction with God Himself for this divine proof to be observable- and what better proof of God can one ask than to communicate with Him personally?
Not only that, but there’s literally nothing to lose other than a few hours of one’s life and maybe a sliver of ego- IF the Christian is delusional and there is no God. Obviously, if He does exist, then there is plenty to lose, depending on one’s response to Him. I’m not saying everyone who tries praying is going to have an immediate supernatural experience, of course. But all I’m saying is that it should naturally follow that the one who demands extraordinary evidence be willing to engage in the most extraordinary yet “least demanding” form of research.
The problem with theists is that they do not hold their religion to the same standards as they hold other claims or religions to. It is always a case of special pleading. Pine Creek does a thought experiment which is a line of questioning called "the flying man." The object of the questions is to see at what point the theist will accept that his Uncle Myron flew like a bird without the aid of any technology. He posits that there is "credible witness testimony" from several witnesses. Those witnesses were willing to die to spread the truth of his uncle Myron's unaided flight. His flight was documented in a book that certifies that what is written in it is true, etc. He goes down all the lines of "evidence" Christians use to support their claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Almost none of them ever are willing to accept that his Uncle Myron flew like a bird without the aid of technology, even though he posits the same exact type of evidence with which they readily accept and support biblical claims.
Maybe my brain is too tiny but I dont really understand how this addresses the claim at all.
The scientific method inherently produces extraordinary evidence…? Thats like the point of it no? If you could do that experiment on the resurrection it would be extraordinary evidence…
Better be careful, you might hurt yourself beating up that strawman too much.
That's just an extrapolation of Ockham razor's.
I know what we’re going to do today, Mummy Ferb!
Don't mix up low probability and impossibility (according to the current knowledge).
Wow interesting title... lets see what you make of it
I think extraordinary claims do require at least more evidence because they are less likely than common claims
That is what was said in the Thomas Sherlock quote in the video
oh ok thx
@@TestifyApologetics So then what is the point of making this video if you agree that an extraordinary claim is going to need more evidence which is what that argument basically says. The more unbelievable a claim the more evidence you need for it. That is the argument full stop. Unicorns exists is going to be followed by an extraordinary claim need extraordinary evidence you have for the existence of unicorns
@@aaronrumph3291 If I saw a unicorn, I'd believe in unicorns. Same happened here.
@@zephyr-117sdropzone8 You seeing a unicorn does nothing to proof unicorns exists which is what we are talking about here. It isn't about you believe something for whatever reason but actually demonstrating that this thing does exist
Is THAT Catturd?!
Lol no. Different cat meme.
As someone with a degree in rocket science, I agree that this isn't rocket science.
'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' is not an argument, at least not a formal one. It's really just a shorthand for 'I am unwilling to revise my understanding of the fundamental nature of the world for something as fallible as a two thousand year-old book'.
I get that you guys think that the case for the resurrection is good enough, but there are enough wrinkles and holes in the story (not to mention all of the conceptual problems with the god of the bible as-presented) that there simply is not enough in there to convince someone who isn't already predisposed to believe.
So the evidence for the resurrection is not good enough to convince you that your belief (with zero evidence behind it) is actually wrong.
So.. you're anti-science.
@@InitialPC Anti-science??? Look, I don't think any of the evidence that exists for the resurrection warrants the belief, but even if I did, it's very obviously not scientific evidence. There's no test or experiment being done. There's no falsifiability, measurement, anything like that.
@@fancycreb anti-science
@@InitialPC What is science, to you?
@@fancycreb something backed up evidence
there is evidence jesus was resurrected
there is no evidence he was not
you believe the latter
Claims require proportional evidence to be believable. I wouldn’t require evidence if my brother told me he went for a walk. However, if he told me that he jumped over the house, i would need much evidence to believe him as he never showed the ability to do so and as I have never seen nor heard of someone able to do this. To say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence might be poorly phrased but it is valid.
I'm not saying it isn't valid. It's just not clearly stated and often is code for: "there can be no such evidence." But as Thomas Sherlock was quoted in the video, it's not wrong to require more evidence.
@@TestifyApologetics But it isn't code for "there can be no such evidence" It is just saying that so far nobody has been able to give valid evidence for their claim and you assuming because you can't deliver sufficient evidence that there can be no such evidence. It is Religious people showing a lack of believe in their God that it can't provide the evidence needed to proof itself
@@aaronrumph3291 too bad the presupposition of the non believers means that any evidence not fitting into their worldview is dismissed
@@Pikee not really if you want to proof you have superpowers then you have to demonstrate your superpowers not just claim you have superpowers and that a bunch of people have seen you use your superpowers or ghost write a book about how you have superpowers and the adventures you had with said superpowers.
@@aaronrumph3291 wow a straw man argument, no way. I'm very surprised by this turn of events!
I love it.
It’s a non-sequitur
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!"
No they don't. Really. They simply require sufficient evidence for the context of the scenario.
The fact that this sounds persuasive has more to do with its grammatical structure than any actual logical connection.
For instance, imagine claiming that "Extraordinary drives require extraordinary vehicles."
No they don't.
A Ford Escort can drive from the tip of Washington State to the tip of the Florida Keys with sufficient maintenance (and back).
Extraordinary drives, or anything else, simply require sufficient means; that is all that follows.
@@Pumpkin_Lich I can feel an unnecessary jab from this one lol
That is what that phrase means though the more unlikely something is the more evidence you need to proof it.
Wouldn't saying that a miracle is an extraordinary event also mean that any evidence in favor of a miracle is by default considered extraordinary, making the slogan meaningless?
what would "extraordinary evidence" even be? another miracle? but then you'd need another miracle to prove the new miracle, and then another miracle to prove the miracle you needed to prove the original miracle, and so on and so on, ad infinitum. "extraordinary evidence" is so relative. you only need good evidence, as you do with everything else, not "extraordinary", whatever that means.
@@ramigilneas9274 I've studied ancient greek and roman literature and history for years before becoming a Christian, and trust me, anyone with a tiny bit of classical education recognizes the Gospels are neither anonymous, nor hearsay. If they are anonymous, then Plato
, Aristotle, Cicero, Plutarch, Xenophon, Josephus, Polybius, Diodorus Siculus, Tacitus, etc. are also all anonymous.
@@ramigilneas9274 Josephus talked about himself in the third person in the Jewish War... According to the logic you apply to the Gospels, for example, when Matthew describes Levi's calling, he can't be talking about himself, because he HAS to use the 1st person singular, otherwise it's the product of an anonymous author. So why isn't Josephus' The Jewish War also anonymous according to you?
Textual critics are not necessarily also historians. A lot of textual critics of the Bible love to search out what they think are literary devices,because they start from the assumption it just CAN'T be something much more banal than that. Often they find symbolism and hidden meaning where there's none. Like when they insist that the 5 columns of Bethesda's portico have to refer to the 5 books of the Pentateuch, when it simply happens that the portico had 5 columns and John was simply reporting an eyewitness detail, not embellishing his work like some sort of novel.
@@ramigilneas9274 And yet you can't disprove that writing in third person about oneself is not necessarily a signal of anonymity. Josephus is just one of many examples. But there's also the fact that not all ancient works also had a prologue that identified the author, or even gave a title with the name of the author.
That second comment about "explicitly copying" only makes sense if you assume Mark comes first. Which is not without dispute in the academia.
I never said that the gospel authors identified themselves. I said that it's not true we don't know who wrote them. There is external evidence of who the author is (the early unanimous attestation) and the internal (many details that denote an eyewitness source, not literary fabrication).
I hope that if this exchange is to continue, our discussion can be respectful and constructive, without any sarcastic, antagonistic or mocking attitude.
@@ramigilneas9274 Just because something is close to unanimity does it make it true? There needs to be evidence. In the past, many close to unanimity views turned out to be false, even in fields of hard science, unlike textual criticism. For Markan priority the only evidence is that it's the shortest. And that's somehow going to prove it's the first one? How? Why? That's merely an assumption. So how is something "demonstrably false" if it relies only on an assumption?
How can you be 100% sure that Matthew could not have been a translation from Hebrew? Josephus' work was also originally written in Hebrew, according to Josephus' own admission, and he then translated it into Greek. But we have no extant copies of his work in Hebrew, only Greek copies remained, as it was the lingua franca of the time. Does that mean Josephus lied?
By the way Matthew is the gospel with the most number of semitisms. One example is the expression "kingdom of the heavens" (basileia twn ouranwn) which is most likely the literal translation of the Hebrew "Malkuth HaShamayim" since the word "heaven" in Hebrew does not have the singular, only the plural. In Luke, which is more geared toward the Gentiles, it's not surprising that it says "kingdom of God" instead, given that "kingdom of the heavens" probably would not make much sense to them.
@@ramigilneas9274 I am aware of the Synoptic Problem. But like Dr. David Alan Black and many other scholars say, it's a "problem" only if you assume that they depend on each other, and that it HAS to be in a specific way. And the main justification for saying that Mark comes first, is pointing out that it's the shortest and the one with less details. It's assumed then that the other gospels merely expanded on it. This is an assumption, not "irrefutable evidence".
I won't deny that many evangelical scholars also submit to the mainstream theory that Mark comes first, I'm well aware of that. That doesn't mean much to me unless there's good reasons to believe that. And from what I could study so far, it seems a questionable position to hold, because of many internal and external considerations.
And yes, you've been quite rude to me so far. It's not appreciated. Even if I were wrong, it's not justified. I shouldn't be the one to "make it easy" for you, you're the one who should be able to discuss things respectfully, and in a civil manner, especially since I've treated you with respect so far. It's disappointing but not surprising. Many atheists think they're superior to christians just because they don't have the same beliefs.
Anyway, this interview on Dr. David Alan Black explains further what I mean when I say the Synoptic Problem is only a problem if you really want it to be a problem. ua-cam.com/video/XuQ7dza1NVY/v-deo.html
It's not complicated. And it's not bulletproof. It's a principle to guide your beliefs and prevent you from falling for anything. ECREE is not a standalone argument and anyone using it as such is ill equipped for a debate. And yes... Saying someone was healed requires credible courtroom evidence for me to believe.
McGrew is a genius
Genius
Here is what people mean by extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ordinary claims AKA events that have been observed to happen often require little proof of a rather common nature, sometimes just the word of mouth is enough.
Example: If you say you saw a bird smashing into your window yesterday, I might ask a proof like the body of said bird( a common object) or depending on the circumstances just take your word for it and believe you anyways. Nothing of a rare or unlikely nature is required for me to believe you.
But extraordinary claims AKA events that have been rarely or never observed in reality do require equally rare or never seen before evidence to be believed.
Example. If you say you saw a fairy smash into your window yesterday, your word of mouth is certainly not gonna be enough. An evidence just as rare as a fairy smashing into a window is required, like the body of a fairy. Without that no word of mouth or written word, or even video evidence( could be an effect) will ever be enough. Extraordinary evidence( body of a fairy) is essential for your claim to be believed.
This is why no passage of your Bible, no man or woman's testimony, no personal experiences will ever be enough for a rational person to believe Jesus walked on water or came back from the dead. Those are "ordinary evidence". We need extraordinary evidence AKA Jesus himself, or at least the record of someone coming back from the dead.
Hardly. If multiple people see the fairy smash the window and those people are found to be functional and trustworthy, I would say you have reason to believe that person. Extraordinary claims simply require a bit more ordinary evidence than normal claims.
@@petery6432 I disagree people who see fairies in general wouldn't be considered trustworthy in our reality, in any circumstances.
@@petery6432 Eyewitnesses lose credibility when they make extraordinary claim without sufficient evidence. It doesn’t matter how many credible people believe the earth is flat, it doesn’t make it so.
@@ronytheronin7439 False analogy. Many other pieces of evidence shows how the earth is flat. It has been explained via science. However, attempts at explaining away the resurrection are unbelievably bad. And as Testify has argued elsewhere, the fact that miracles violate laws of nature doesn't count as evidence against them; they simply solidify their status as miracles and not random events in nature.
@@petery6432 Wow he just trolled you hard dude he just got you to unknowing say that the earth is flat despite all the evidence that the Earth is round not flat.
The Mcgrews are doing so much for Christianity ✝️
Has your witness seen a ghost ? Has your witness established from experience, competence to distinguish a living person, not just from an inert dead body, but from an apparitional form that iinteracts + shows sentience just like a living person ?
Without that, you have not disposed of the possibility that Jesus was a ghost. Now, you have a story where he eats fish + on that evidence denies being a ghost, but you have no evidence to establish that that specific story is true. But you have a plural number of stories, in both Luke + John, where he has ghostlike properties that are not in our normal experience of living persons. He keeps his face unrecognised for several hours, he (very cruelly) vanishes as soon as the folks realise who he is, or he enters a locked room.
only 2K Subscribers? I'll post a comment when it's 10k
probably in a few months :-)
The claim that there is no creator and the universe just happened is an extraordinary claim. Where is the skeptics' extraordinary evidence?
The thing is, they don't say God doesn't exist. They say the evidence for God's existent isn't enough, so that way, they don't have to prove that God doesn't exist; they just have to prove the arguments for God's existence wrong.
Where are your evidence that there is no magical werewallrus living on Pluto and making anti-music? Where is your evidence that the world hasn’t been created by invisible pink unicorns? Or that there’s a Teapot in orbit of mercury that is impossible to see with modern telescopes?
Not believing in these does not require a leap of faith nor does it require evidence to be disbelieved. That’s why the burden of the proof is on the shoulders of the claim maker. Otherwise we would spend our whole existence debunking or believing ludicrous claims.
@@ronytheronin7439 Whether or not werewallrus are living on Pluto doesn't matter. People that say they don't exist simply can because taking them out of the picture changes nothing. If you take God out of the picture, then you need to explain how the universe popped into existence without him. I'm so freaking tired of this mind-numbingly stupid analogy.
@@petery6432 No I don’t require explanation for the world existence. I rather live in simple honest ignorance of the ramifications of creation than replacing it with make belief. What makes you think that YOUR god created all this?
What created god? Where’s your explanation on that? Take god out of the picture an we can see how the universe converts the energy into stars and heavy matter to create planets, then life. Does science claim to have all the answers? No. Does it justify replacing this with superstition? No.
@@ronytheronin7439 Science can not explain the origin of the universe. ( what started the Big Bang?). Christianity does.
Science can not explain the origin of life. Every attempt has failed miserably.
Christianity does have a logical explanation. If God exists then He can start life.
The Big Bang requires an "uncaused cause ". This uncaused cause must be outside the space time continuum. If it was inside it would have had to create itself. The uncaused cause must be personal to have the will to cause anything and intelligence to be able to choose to do so. It must have the ability to do so ie be powerful. Those are the qualities of God.
One of the first arguments against the Big Bang theory, by the man who invented the term big bang, as derision, was that it suggests the necessity of a god.
Do you believe Ceasar existed?
Do you know how little that question narrows it down?
@@TestifyApologetics Explain
There is no extraordinary evidence for the resurrection; in fact there is no evidence at all.
have we got a show for you
@@TestifyApologetics
Yes, an unconvincing one.
If I say to you that I have a dragon in my garage, would you believe me? If no, why?
If you and 12 other people claim to have seen it, and refused to recant even in the face of danger, suffering and death before denying it then I'd be inclined to think that it is possible, sure.
@@TestifyApologetics What if theses testimonies were from 2000 years ago, from unreliables sources?
The whole point of this channel is to show they are reliable. Watch previous videos and stay tuned for more, I guess
@@TestifyApologetics 5000 people saw the dragon and died horrible deaths for telling the truth. Do you believe now?
@@ramigilneas9274
Not even the most foolish of fools can deny the existance of the dragon with that amount of irrefutable evidence
Virgin Christian: "Proves God's existence through proofs and logic"
Chad Christian: "Feels the mystical presence of God through singing ancient chants" .
I'm puzzled about why the narrator uses modern made-up terms for things that had actual names in biblical times ("jesus movement" instead of church, "palestine" instead of judea galilee or samaria, etc.). Since the topic is biblical, why not use biblical terms?
Palestine was the Roman name for the area; the Jesus movement is a term scholars use to indicate the fact that it wasn’t organized in the same way it was when it became more like “the church” near the beginning of the second century.
Extraordinary claims require evidence to support them. Not extraordinary evidence, just evidence man!
You saying that means you don't understand what the phrase means. The more complex a claim is the more evidence you need to support it. That is what the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" means. It doesn't mean that to proof a God exists you need to show evidence of a God creator
Finally someone who will believe my story about how my friend died and came back to life. It’s a simple observation. Therefore I cannot be mistaken. Now heed my moral imperatives, and kneel before your God.
"What would constitute extraordinary evidence?" is a fair question. It may sometimes be difficult to quantify, but some evidence would be a good start. Too often theists just make arguments, and think that an argument is actually evidence, even if the argument has a hole or two in it. When a NEC says that the entire universe is 6000 years old, that is an extraordinary claim, and we would expect some supporting evidence to support that. Unfortunately, the main evidence presented is that this is worked out from the generations of the bible, and the body of scientific evidence that debunks this has to be erroneous. The guys at AIG spend a good deal of time and energy condescendingly trying to pick holes in evolutionary theory, because they consider the concept to be an invention of the Devil. Their presented evidence is typically very thin on the ground, but the general aim is to try and attack the scientific consensus, with any inventive argument they can muster. They tend to be oblivious to the fact that even if you could cast doubt on one point of view, that in itself does not necessarily prove another. For instance, even if they could actually find evidence that showed a flaw in an aspect of evolutionary theory, it does not instantly prove the creation story from Genesis.
Many different Christian creeds from Catholics to Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses to Mormons, Muslims and so on can all make good arguments, although generally their respective theologies don't allow for anyone else to be right, only them. However, what is presented are arguments, by those that passionately believe them, but how do we know which of them may be true? Evidence of course. It is not enough to say that atheists would never accept any evidence, because it could just as easily be said that theists will often accept any that supports their belief and disregard any that doesn't.
How îs it claiming that it is 13 billion years old different,labcoats who support transgenderism says so
methuselah star is older than the universe
This is a willful misunderstanding of Sagan's point. Also, super weird move by Tim McGrew to call this the Argumentum Sagani, but whatever - when all you have is bad arguments, I guess snark must feel useful.
There are so many places where the overconfident McGrew is just flat out wrong, but let's just take a really obvious example. For the example of "spontaneous proton decay", the observation of spontaneous proton decay would be extraordinary. That means that the evidence of this phenomenon would be extra (beyond) ordinary - evidence that literally no one has every seen before. It's not impossible that we could find the evidence - the reading that would indicate to us that spontaneous proton decay had occurred - but that evidence would be really extraordinary.
Yet all of this is a distraction from the most salient point: that McGrew and his ilk don't even have mundane evidence that Jesus resurrected. All we have are creeds and stories developed or written (at a minimum) years after his death. That's it. Spend "way to many hours watching videos" and see for yourself: the best they can come up with is, "the universe seems really finely tuned so... god?"
I’m proud of you for going half way and realizing most miracles can be debunked, but the difference with the resurrection is that it’s not something tertiary, it’s the cornerstone of the gospel and there’s not a lot of good evidence for it, let alone extraordinary evidence.
that's where you're wrong, kiddo.
Hella'va strawman you've stuffed here
Yeah the guy who wrote the entry on miracles to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is just making straw men 🙄
Ya, its true
Tell me you have a dog, thats cool
Tell me you have a dragon, we are going to need some extrodinary evidence, eh?
how original
@@TestifyApologetics you spelled 'true' wrong
its 'how true'
but hey,imagine that we should all accept your particular magic sky man claims as 'totally reasonable' instead, if it makes you feel better, eh?
after all, a magic sky man is closer to a dog than a dragon anyway, right?
I mean, everyones got one that they imagine is the best ever and nobodys got a real dragon, right?
@@TestifyApologetics you gonna show us evidence for your dragon or just admit all youve really got is a dog,like everyone else?
Extraordinary claims require only just as much evidence as ordinary claims.
I am your god. I chose to speak to you through the UA-cam comment section. You mustn’t challenge me (Deuteronomy 6:16, Mathew 4:5-7)
I ask you take my claim with as much scrutiny as if a mortal said he owns a dog.
The lord has spoken.
no if I claim I own a dog I bet you would be more inclined to take my word for it over if I said I had a dog that can fly and shoot laser from his eyes
The reality is that there is extraordinary evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.
Extraordinary evidence?
Lets start with God. God Is someone who Is extraordinary, so we Need an extraordinary proof. Miracles can actually be the extraordinary proof and many people from the past and the present are testimony of miracles. But even this we are still in need of extraordinary proofs for the miracles that are the extraordinary proof. So even if we found an extraordinary proof for miracles, atheists will anyway use the same "joker card" in order to not accept the true.
Miracles are not proof of god, though. If something miraculous happened, you'd have to still show that there's a god causing those miracles, as opposed to some other supernatural force. Unless you're defining a miracle as something that only a god can cause, in which case you'd need to show that that something is actually a miracle.
@@fancycreb Well, there are people that testimony miracles from the christian God, even muslims. I know even two people that recived miracles from Yawheh, the first one I cant tell, because he asked me to not tell It to anyone until his death, while the other one I can tell you.
@@celestialodysseies How do you know the miracles came from the Christian god?
@@fancycreb Some muslims said that they saw Jesus.
@@celestialodysseies Do you believe that someone claiming that a miracle happened is enough to conclude that a miracle happened?
Couldn't help but notice the subtle jab at Muhammad the messenger as an "inspired poet". Otherwise, well argued, and hence, the like.
Atheist (screeching shrilly): “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!”
Theist: “Where’s the extraordinary evidence for _that_ claim?”
@@Pumpkin_Lich I never said it was a straw man. Rather, it’s a classic case of begging the question. After all, who gets to decide what’s extraordinary and what isn’t? Only the skeptic?
When one considers the _vast_ majority of humanity down through history has believed in some sort of Higher Power, it would seem to me the burden of (dis)proof lies with the atheist. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the burden of disproof is on the small minority who say “It’s not a duck!”
To me, nothing is more extraordinary (and absurd) than claiming the following:
Nothing x nobody = everything and everybody.
To me, _that_ requires some _really_ extraordinary evidence.
@@Pumpkin_Lich what do you claim? Do you believe my little equation is true?
That claim is not an extrordinary claim, since it is not extrordinary to require more evidence for less ordinary claims.
God is the one that needs to extraordinary evidence, and so far the human race has found none
It is not a claim. It is just a standard we have decide to believe anything.
Second
Imagine the absolute deluded worldview you've got to have to think this man is in any way more intelligent than Carl bloody Sagan.
When it comes to philosophy, Tim McGrew is a lot more intelligent. When it comes to astronomy or cosmology, then sure, Carl knows more. But the point is when Carl ventured over into philosophy, he wasn't so good.
@@TestifyApologetics I'll concede that point even if I disagree. Philosophy was the first attempt at explaining the world, universe and spirituality, and for over three thousand years we've had progression on that front. I'm sorry that you stick with apologetics that promote ideals from two millenia ago, including the execution of rape victims and homosexuals as God apparently told Leviticus, but the world has moved on.
You do you, I'll do me - one thing is clear though, another thousand years or so and your ideals and apologetics will be laughed away, whilst Carl Sagan's apparent non-ability and unknowledge related to philosophy will live on.
Rake in that cash while you can - who knows, maybe one of your disciples will claim that the end times are here.... again?
The dead don’t rise up after 3 days. Some guy saying he saw it does not measure up against reality. You twist and turn and try so hard to say Jesus is risen but can’t show Jesus. All you can show is that some people really believed he rose. That does not prove in any way that Jesus came back from the dead. Show Jesus or shut up
Poor peasants born in log cabins don't become Presidents. Some guy saying they saw Lincoln doesn't make it reality. You twist and turn so hard to say Lincoln was the 18th President and freed the slaves but that does not show Lincoln, all you can show is some really believe he was behind the Emancipation Proclamation. This does not prove anything. Show Lincoln or shut up.
Ps thanks for the angry comment, it helps me in the UA-cam algorithm.
@@TestifyApologetics how’s this for a comment. I agree that extraordinary claims don’t require extraordinary evidence. But they do require evidence that is directly tied to the claim. With the resurrection of Jesus there is none. All the evidence that is available just goes to his followers and their state of mind. You would not say the 9/11 hijackers proved Islam is true by their deaths. Or that monk that torched himself in Vietnam proved his faith was true. It’s seems you are against just saying you have faith in Jesus because he proved himself to you. Yes all skeptics reject personal experience as evidence. But Jesus calls believers to share the gospel not debate. God is the one that opens hearts right? If he opens a persons heart, then your personal experience becomes tangible evidence to that person. So just be honest that nobody can prove Jesus rose. But if you are sincere in your faith. Just stand on the fact that he has shown himself to you. Debate evolution or abortion or doctrine.
How familiar are you wiht the evidence? No one is saying people sufferred, therefore it's true. Skeptics who serioulsy debate this issue would disagree with you.
Jeff Lowder, one of the founders of infidels.org, says:
“I remember thinking to myself that if I took the time to investigate the resurrection, I could make anyone who believed it look like a fool. Or so I thought… I was about to discard it as ‘another illogical religious belief,’… yet I found it extremely difficult to deal with as a critic.”
And the famous Oxford philosopher Antony Flew said “the evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.”
@@TestifyApologetics I concede that some died believing that Jesus rose. Pretty sure Christian and secular historians agree on 2 to 4 apostles being legit martyrs. But that only goes to show their state of mind. The disconnect is the supernatural. Jesus living and dying are reasonable. Just saying God has the power to raise the dead doesn’t cover it. I’m not asking for proof of God. How do you prove something beyond time and space? But the biblical story just comes off as fan fiction. Too unreal to be real.
TBH, that's just an argument from personal incredulity. Jesus performed surprising deeds that even his opponents thought were supernatural, and predicted his own death and resurrection. And there's a lot more context that I'll get into in later videos. But the resurrection didn't happen in a vacuum.
If the opposing party is requiring extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims “such as the resurrection of Christ Jesus”, remember that one of their “natural” explanations for why the disciples of a Christ believed that they saw the risen Jesus from the dead was “and I’m not kidding” that Jesus was an alien. There’s your extraordinary evidence Jesus rose from the dead. That the opposing party has to go to such great lengths to try and “naturally” explain away the resurrection of Christ. As a Christian, this makes me feel very good in my belief.
Yeah, it’s not a popular idea among skeptics. Most just think the scriptures are unreliable and Jesus didn’t raise from the dead…
Do you really think atheists can out-crazy you?
Sorry no someone trying to theorize something supernatural is them trying to explain something there is no evidence for in the first place.
It is like saying I feel good in my believes that unicorns exists because someone said it is probably just a horse with a horn taped to it despite them never actually see what you claim to believe
Yes, Sagan. Prove abiogenesis and then you can talk about evidence.
Love Dr. McGrew!