[small snip]
> I recently downloaded the Till-Horner debate (on the resurrection)
> from the freethough web and there are some points I would like to look
> at.
>
> In response to the request that extraordinary claims demand
> extraordinary evidence Horner has this to say:
[Horner's response snipped]
> But let me play theist's advocate for a moment and ask the question:
>
> What would convince a skeptic that the resurrection did take place.
> It seems as though this 'extraordinary evidence ...' rejects miracles
> apriori.
>
> Is the demand for extraordinary evidence an unrealistic standard?
I attended the debate in question, and although I think that Farrell (Till) did an excellent job, IMO Horner made some real points with his rebuttal to the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" assertion. And I think that he is *almost* right when he says what we need is "good evidence," though I would change it to "very strong evidence" or something like that -- perhaps someone can come up with a better phrase.
I think Horner is wrong when he says that we do have good evidence (for the Resurrection) and what he said did not change my mind about the lack of evidence for the Resurrection. BUT, he did change my mind about the *advisability* of using the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary" evidence assertion.
Don