Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence (Paulogia response)

Some people, such as myself, have become convinced that Christianity is true based on the evidence for the resurrection. Other people, who have been exposed to the same evidence, don’t find it compelling. There can be many reasons why this is the case. Atheist YouTuber Paulogia made a whole video about why he thinks the claim "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence" makes sense. I agree with much of what he said, but still I think that anybody who is intellectually honest should find the evidence for the resurrection compelling.

Every sincere truth seeker should be open to the occurrence of miracles. The claim that Jesus rose from the dead may be extraordinary to you, but it is not fair that you see it as so extremely extraordinary that no amount of evidence could ever convince you.

--- YOU MIGHT ALSO ENJOY ---

Is Christianity the Only Truth? My Response to a Progressive Christian Theologian

Jordan Peterson on Claiming Belief in God (Christian Response)

[leebarnett]

On what basis do you reject the miracle claims of other religions?

There are witness claims that Muhammad rode to heaven on the back of a Pegasus.
Sathya Sai Baba has hundreds of thousands who testify to his miracles.

If you accept testimony as evidence for miracles than these events should be just as real to you as Christian mythology.

If you reject the testimony of these witnesses, why don't you apply that skepticism to the anonymous writings of your bible?

[adamheywood]

_I have a box in my shed._
_The box is empty now, but it once held a dragon._
_I also have a book that says lots of people saw my dragon fly away._
This account may seem reasonable to people who _already_ believe in dragons, but you, dear reader, are likely not one of them.
So you may ask, "Why should I believe your account? What evidence is there that dragons exist at all, let alone that you had one in your shed?"
And at this point, I would say:
_I have a box in my shed._
_The box is empty now, but it once held a dragon._
_I also have a book that says lots of people saw my dragon fly away._
So why are you not convinced of the truthfulness and logicality of my account?

[mytwocents]

"I think that anybody who is intellectually honest should find the evidence for the resurrection compelling."
How can you be impressed by that evidence? It's thoroughly inconsistent. Luke and John claim the risen Jesus appeared to the eleven on Easter in Jerusalem while Matthew thinks he appeared to them several days later in Galilee. And that's the first appearance to the eleven, an event that ought to have been unforgettable. The risen Jesus doesn't even say the same things from one gospel to another. According to Luke, Jesus told the disciples to stay in Jerusalem and await the Pentecost. According to John, Jesus seems to have presided over Pentecost on Easter ("Receive ye the holy spirit"). Matthew's Jesus simply doesn't refer to Pentecost at all. Only Luke records the Ascension! Despite Paul's reference to an appearance to 500 disciples, none of the gospels mentions that incident. A varied collection of uncorroborated reports is evidence of myth making, not of real events.

[stellijer]

None of this actually is an argument for any God's existence, let alone the Christian God.

[ingersoll_bob]

Also, arguments aren't evidence. It's an argument.
Your video is mostly using the fallacy of Argument from Incredulity.

[Devious_Dave]

Paraphrasing the sub-title... "The claim that Jesus rose from the dead may be extraordinary to you, but it is not fair that [only a sufficient level of] evidence [will] convince you." The video argues against 'philosophical naturalism' but what about 'methodological naturalism' where the supernatural would be considered if it were demonstrated?

[horridhenry]

Belief in god is a matter of personal belief or faith. To go beyond faith and claim existence of any particular god as fact requires what is needed to establish any disputed phenomenon. INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE that does not require a pre-existing belief in that phenomena to be persuasive. None of this evidence is currently available for the existence of any god.
All I hear from theists are arguments devoid of testable, repeatable, empirical evidence .
Believe what you want, but if you make a claim, you have the burden of proof.

[cultofdisbelief]

You should always site your sources. Anyone can create a slide with the words of someone to support your own perspective. This feels more like confirmation bias rather than research. This feels like your trying to prove to those who believe in the same way you do that you are correct rather than appealing to the audience who disagrees with you. Would love to hear your actual thoughts on the subject rather than regurgitating the thoughts of others.

I appreciate your attempt at starting a conversation but you really didn’t respond to what Paulogia actually said. If your intended audience are those of us who don’t believe, you won’t reach us this way.

And if your audience is those who already agree with you, you’re not doing them any favors by not actually explaining the evidence your are referring to and letting them decide whether or not it is sufficient. If they actually looked at the evidence for the foundation of their faith, they might be disappointed or might even reject their beliefs much like I did.

[enzoarayamorales]

"Ditch your naturalism"

Ok, I am unrealistic.

[marcelkuizenga]

Carel simply doesn't know what good evidence is.

[canwelook]

You lost me at the very beginning by saying 3 'facts' convinced you: empty tomb; post-mortem appearances; sincere belief of the disciples.

These are not even facts. Not even close to facts. The fact is that all you really have are mere stories, by anonymous authors, believed to be written decades after claimed events, based on hearsay, authors unable to be cross examined or their evidence tested, authors clearly plagiarised each other's stories, authors clearly biased by an apologetic agenda, making claims that defy all known and testable phenomena.

There are innumerable possible mundane explanations that could reasonably account for your 'facts'.

Can you seriously imagine this type of 'evidence' would produce a favourable verdict in a court of law? Or a scientific journal?

Do you apply such low standards of evidence in any other areas of your life? If so, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

[Tylr_B]

Very helpful high quality video! Your presentation on how worldviews effect our willingness to draw conclusions from evidence, the argument from reason, rebutting philosophical naturalism, and refuting David Hume were very good. Keep up the great work!

[Nobody-jvbs]

I’m so happy to see a fellow devout Christian from out of all places, the Netherlands, a country I thought was lost to foul secular atheism. You are proof that Christianity is growing rapidly around the world and that we are truly in a post-secular golden age of Christianity. May God bless you so much. Btw lol at the paulogia stans

[BerishaFatian]

I thought C.S Lewis said Haldane's quote.

[rvcamping]

That is correct. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To claim that purpose and intent (humans having purpose and intent in their actions) comes from purposeless and unguided processes is an extraordinary claim. This has to be demonstrated to be true. You can't just state a narrative as evidence.

However, the Christian is on solid ground to say that the purpose and intent that humans have in their actions comes from being the product of an intelligent argent. No additional evidence is needed. We already know that purpose and intent comes from intelligent agents. (Well, OK, I'm claiming humans are intelligent agents) That is a given.