Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence (William Lane Craig response)

William Lane Craig says, "It sounds so common sensical, doesn't it, to say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence if you are to believe them. That sounds so right, but in fact I think it's demonstrable false. It is simply not true that highly and highly improbable events require extraordinary evidence in order to believe in them."

But is that what a skeptic means when they invoke that Sagan slogan?

Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

Support Paulogia at

Follow Paulogia at

[gregcampwriter]

Sagan's point is that if you hear hooves on the street behind you, leaping to the conclusion that you're hearing a centaur is going to require a lot more support than a claim that you're hearing a horse to be believable.

[stiimuli]

There's a simple thought experiment I use concerning this issue:
-What if i told you there was cat in my back yard last night? You wouldn't generally need much evidence to believe this because we know cats exist, are common and can sometimes be found in people's yards. You might even simply take my word for it...and that would not be unreasonable.
-What if i told you there was a tiger in my back yard last night? This would require more substantial evidence to believe because tigers are far less common and are (almost) never found in anyone's yard. However, we do know tigers exist and a circumstance resulting in a tiger in someone's yard is possible.
-What if I told you there was a dragon in my back yard last night? This claim would require extremely substantial evidence to believe because dragons have not been established to exist anywhere, let alone in anyone's yard.

[brendandmcmunniii]

Amazingly Craig is seen as a leading apologist.
Boy is that a low bar.

[billyhw]

Extraordinary claims require sufficient evidence, just like everything else.

[rodneytgap]

I once silenced WLC in an argument by uttering only two words. He was so mortified he had to flee the scene. You know this must have happened because it's such an extraordinary claim that it requires no evidence.

[GrassesOn]

Literally the first time I watched WLC say “extraordinary claims don’t require extraordinary evidence”, my soul left my body from the amount of idiocy behind that statement.

I used to be a Christian and when I learned about how “there has to be good and demonstrable evidence for, say, the existence for God”, it broke my faith because I knew that my faith was just that, faith.

[MTRRCTNGL]

Christians react to this claim as if we said "The ugliest person has to carry the heaviest box." They're thinking, "You just insulted me and are forcing me to do more work?

[Mr.H-YT]

All Sagan was saying that the more unusual a claim, the stronger the evidence should be so we can be confident it is an exception to the expected.

- You have a pet dog? Who doesn't?
- You have a pet tiger? Wow -- that's really unusual. Tigers are real animals, so this is plausible, but very rarely kept as pets. Can I hear more about how this came about?
- You have a pet dragon? Um... those are generally not considered real. I think I'm gonna need to see this creature for myself.
- You have a pet poltergeist that is not only invisible but intangible? I'm curious how you even begin to demonstrate this is true.

[jesuswasahermetic]

William lane Craig is the definition of saying a lot about NOTHING

[Griexxt]

It seems that making extraordinary claims on Youtube requires disabled comments.

[robertw]

I miss Christopher Hitchens and Carl Sagan.

[colclark]

It might work to put Sagan's claim on the front of a t-shirt (fully attributed) with an asterisk. Then, put Paul's expanded version on the back!!!

[deweyg]

Why does WLC remind me of Vizzini? “Inconceivable!”

[MrArdytube]

I really do love the way in which you pick through these arguments in order to show how their self evident certainty is based on clever rhetorical tricks, sloppy thinking, and glib assumptions

[johnhill]

Paul's lottery discussion is exactly what I would have argued. Highly improbable that a given individual will win the big prize, but not that some individual could win the prize given the number of participants.

[neoream]

Carl Sagan was a great man he will be forever missed

[matthewalan]

I watched this video several months ago and then recently watched it again. I will likely watch it several more times. It is one of your best. Your presentation and discussion is so very clear, intelligent, and informative. Also, your kind, generous, and polite nature are always in evidence. The claim that extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary evidence is really a cornerstone of practical reason. No one has done a better job than you in dissecting and explaining this aphorism. I send people to this video as being a basic part of their education in how to think.

I am always a bit amazed that you could ever have been a devout Christian who defended the nonsense that you now do such a good job of refuting. I wonder how it came to be that your mind finally clicked into a position where you could actually allow yourself to think with some of the clarity that you now exhibit. Anyway, thank you for your work.

[stevencurtis]

If we want something accurate on a T-shirt slogan level, and since the kind of argument this is usually thrown at isn't even trying, how about:

_I need better evidence than what you've got._

[MasterStratocaster]

I this of this as follows: If someone claims that there is a horse in a pasture, and they show me a hoof-print, I have a reasonable basis to assume there is in fact a hoarse in the area; however, say someone claims there is a unicorn in the area and then provides a hoof-print as evidence, unsurprisingly, I would remain unconvinced of a unicorn's existence. In the latter example, the extrodiarny claim (of there being a unicorn) requires significantly more convincing evidence than the claim that there is a horse. The extraordinary claim requires evidence beyond a normal standard.

[rockgodwannabe]

Always blow my mind when apologist argue probability. Its impossible to determine probability without first demonstrating possibility. What are the chances I roll a 6 twice? The right answer is "what kind of die?"