[big snip]
>I really think that it is not at all unreasonable to say that
>extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Personally, I agree with you, Farrell, that it is not *unreasonable* -- but that doesn't mean that it is *advisable* to use this assertion. I think that Horner made some real points with the audience on this one when he asked you what would constitute "extraordinary evidence" and then proceeded to make the "evidence" look as unlikely as the claim. What I am saying is that there might be better terminology.
>An extraordinary claim doesn't necessarily have to be a miracle claim,
>but if it is, I think it is reasonable to argue that such a claim can
>never be proven.
Perhaps it could never be "proven" but I can think of evidence that -- although I don't currently believe in miracles of any sort -- might be *sufficient* for me to change my mind. This would not have to be extraordinary evidence, but very convincing evidence. Perhaps personal experience that was corroborated by hundreds or thousands of other persons, for example, would suffice.
Don