Extraordinary Claims
Skeptical atheists (who might better be called evidentialist atheists) like to say, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I think that obscures a fallacy committed by theists and many atheists alike. I agree with the principle, except for the caveat I will discuss shortly. I would put it this way: the evidence you require for a proposition ought to vary with its plausibility. Remember the three burdens that any sponsor of a proposition must bear: 1) the burden of coherence, 2) the burden of plausibility, and 3) the burden of proof. You don't get to #2 before meeting #1, and you don't get to #3 until you meet #2. If a proposition contains no logical contradiction, then we can move on to plausibility. Logical possibility doesn't guarantee material possibility. It makes sense to require stronger evidence for a less plausible or implausible proposition than for a more plausible proposition. That's just common sense, and most people understand it i