“Part 1: The Bayesian Interpretation of ECREE“: a Bayesian interpretation and defense of ECREE
“Part 2: Is ECREE False? A Reply to William Lane Craig“: Craig’s objection to ECREE is based upon an misinterpretation of ECREE.
“Part 3: Is ECREE False? A Reply to Kurt Jaros“: ECREE emphasizes the common sense notion that the more implausible (i.e., antecedently improbable) we initially regard a claim prior to considering the evidence, the greater the evidence we will require to believe the claim.
“Part 4: NT Reliability, Extraordinary Claims, and the Base Rate Fallacy“: arguments for miracles based solely on the general historical reliability of the New Testament commit the base rate fallacy.
“Part 5: Is ECREE False? A Reply to Greg Koukl and Melinda Penner“: the Bayesian interpretation of ECREE shows why Koukl’s objections to ECREE are misguided
“Part 6: Is ECREE False? A Reply to Greg Koukl and Melinda Penner (continued)“
“Part 7: Christian Apologist Glenn Miller Agrees!”
This article is archived.