We see minds come from natural processes every time an intelligent animal develops from conception. So that doesn't seem very extraordinary to me.
However, I will agree with you that the slogan "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is too vague to be helpful. In my opinion, it's better to look at individual cases. So, for instance, if Matthew claims that he saw a walking-and-talking risen Jesus, then I'm going to need more than just his word on that. John's too.
Let’s be clear: pointing to a developing animal as evidence that “minds come from natural processes” doesn’t actually solve the problem. It just relocates it. A human embryo isn’t a closed naturalistic system inventing consciousness from scratch. It’s an information-rich, already-programmed organism unfolding what’s baked into it from conception. Development isn’t a causal explanation; it’s an execution trace. The real question is where the rational architecture came from in the first place. Naturalism keeps pointing to downstream processes while ignoring the upstream source code.
And on the resurrection: you’re right that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” collapses under its own vagueness. But asking for “more than Matthew and John’s word” misses the shape of the historical record. We aren’t dealing with two isolated testimonies. We’re dealing with early, multiply attested claims from independent lines of tradition; a public proclamation in the same city where the execution occurred; hostile witnesses who never produced a body; conversions of skeptics; and a movement that shouldn’t have survived a weekend if nothing happened. You can challenge the conclusion, but you can’t pretend the evidence is thin.
The deeper issue sits underneath both points. Naturalism keeps asking for proof while standing on assumptions it never justifies—mind from matter, logic from chaos, life from non-life, history from pure accident. You can’t use your rational faculties to doubt the resurrection while holding a worldview that gives you no reason to trust rational faculties in the first place.
Every objection eventually bends back to that tension.
What you describe about the shape of the historical record is something that would need to be established, but I don't see good enough evidence to do that. (Although in my opinion, even if it did look as you describe, I would still consider that very thin evidence when it comes to something like a reanimated dead body.)
For instance, what hostile witnesses are you referring to that never produced Jesus' body, and how do you think that would help your case for the resurrection?
Regarding the origin of DNA, life, and so forth, I don't consider mysteries like that to be problems. They're just mysteries.
We see minds come from natural processes every time an intelligent animal develops from conception. So that doesn't seem very extraordinary to me.
However, I will agree with you that the slogan "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is too vague to be helpful. In my opinion, it's better to look at individual cases. So, for instance, if Matthew claims that he saw a walking-and-talking risen Jesus, then I'm going to need more than just his word on that. John's too.
That's how I'd phrase it.
Let’s be clear: pointing to a developing animal as evidence that “minds come from natural processes” doesn’t actually solve the problem. It just relocates it. A human embryo isn’t a closed naturalistic system inventing consciousness from scratch. It’s an information-rich, already-programmed organism unfolding what’s baked into it from conception. Development isn’t a causal explanation; it’s an execution trace. The real question is where the rational architecture came from in the first place. Naturalism keeps pointing to downstream processes while ignoring the upstream source code.
And on the resurrection: you’re right that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” collapses under its own vagueness. But asking for “more than Matthew and John’s word” misses the shape of the historical record. We aren’t dealing with two isolated testimonies. We’re dealing with early, multiply attested claims from independent lines of tradition; a public proclamation in the same city where the execution occurred; hostile witnesses who never produced a body; conversions of skeptics; and a movement that shouldn’t have survived a weekend if nothing happened. You can challenge the conclusion, but you can’t pretend the evidence is thin.
The deeper issue sits underneath both points. Naturalism keeps asking for proof while standing on assumptions it never justifies—mind from matter, logic from chaos, life from non-life, history from pure accident. You can’t use your rational faculties to doubt the resurrection while holding a worldview that gives you no reason to trust rational faculties in the first place.
Every objection eventually bends back to that tension.
Thanks for the reply.
What you describe about the shape of the historical record is something that would need to be established, but I don't see good enough evidence to do that. (Although in my opinion, even if it did look as you describe, I would still consider that very thin evidence when it comes to something like a reanimated dead body.)
For instance, what hostile witnesses are you referring to that never produced Jesus' body, and how do you think that would help your case for the resurrection?
Regarding the origin of DNA, life, and so forth, I don't consider mysteries like that to be problems. They're just mysteries.