I fail to see how ECREE provides any benefit to conflict resolution or problem solving. In other words, what does it really accomplish? It certainly sounds commonsense and most people would probably recognize the simplicity of it but when you boil it down, it’s an unnecessary argument. A claim requires evidence, whether it is an “extraordinary claim” or not. In a sense, adding the word “extraordinary” poisons the well and can lead to a lot of goalpost moving.
I see this as the problem. Declaration of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is not goalpost moving
, but letting you (the claimant) know where the goalpost is
Furthermore, the claim ECREE contains an equivocation which suggests that it would make more sense to simply say “extraordinary claims require evidence”…or….”claims require evidence”....(although I still have reservations about including the word “extraordinary” in the first option).
Do you honestly not see the merit in communicating what one feels the preponderance of evidence ought to be?
Do you know the reason why we don't ever really say "trivial claims require trivial evidence?" It's not because it's not true. It's just that it has no utility. But there is
utility with the extraordinary variant; namely, to let those in the discussion know that at least person finds a claim to be rather extraordinary and that a higher threshold of evidence needs to be reached for acceptance of that claim.
Using ECREE as some sort of retort to qualify the level of the “God exists” claim adds an unnecessary qualifier that creates tension and serves no real benefit.
But it's a valid retort that certainly serves a real benefit: to let the person who is providing the evidence know that the person evaluating the evidence has found it wanting. To let you know that I find the claim "there exists an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving entity with a vested interest in human affairs" to be an extra
ordinary claim. That it is a claim that requires more evidence
or better evidence
than what I would expect of a claim "there exists a 5'6" tall white man in Nebraska." <-- that, to me, would constitute an ordinary
claim, and my bar for acceptance of that claim is quite a bit lower than the requisite extra
ordinary of "there exists an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving entity with a vested interest in human affairs."
Such a retort is made to let people like you know that "a warm fuzzy feeling" is grossly insufficient to establish the existence of god. That "an old book full of words" is grossly insufficient to establish the existence of god.
The claim of "person resurrected from the dead," to me, is quite extraordinary. Like teleportation, I am completely and utterly unaware of resurrection of the dead
, certainly in terms of human beings. So "an old book full of words" is grossly insufficient to establish that a person rose from the dead. There needs to be a lot more evidence than that, and that evidence needs to be scrutinized more, due to the extraordinary nature of the claim
. What you need to understand is that the retort is letting you know that the evidence you're providing (which, as I understand it in this thread, is "old book full of words" and "argument assuming the involvement of an unestablished deity of unlimited power and a desire to make manifest the claim we are discussing"). <---- that is insufficient, and continuing to let you know that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is to let you know that you have as of yet provided evidence that is anything remotely close to extraordinary.
The problem I
see is that you seem to mistake that for "atheists not genuinely interested in the answer."
To sum up, maybe if you can explain why it is necessary to categorize the teleportation of Bob Smith as an extraordinary claim rather just a claim, it will give me something more to consider.
Because someone says that "because George told me Bob teleported into the bank" is sufficient to accept the claim "Bob Smith teleported into the bank" as true, and they use the truth of Bob Smith's teleportation into the bank as further evidence of other claims. It's helpful (not necessary) to try to convince that person that "Bob Smith teleported into the bank" is an extra
ordinary claim so that they don't just willy-nilly accept any random bullshit as true
and extrapolate other aspects of reality based on that bullshit.