Is It a Crock to Use Bayes’ Theorem to Measure Evidence about God? Part 1
Over at the Christian Cadre, “Metacrock” has written a post entitled, “Bayes Theorum [sic] and Probability of God: No Dice!” Metacrock makes a number of points regarding the use of Bayes’ Theorem (BT) with evidence about God’s existence. I want to comment on many of those points. It is understandable that naturalistic thinkers are uneasy … Is It a Crock to Use Bayes’ Theorem to Measure Evidence about God? Part 1
Implication vs. Entailment
In my recent post “The Perfect Goodness of God – Again” I used conditional derivation to prove a conditional statement, and took that to be sufficient to prove that the antecedent of the conditional statement entailed the consequent. Then I had second thoughts about that approach to proving an entailment. Penance for my possible sin … Implication vs. Entailment
The Perfect Goodness of God – Again (Part 2)
In my previous post on this topic, I used conditional derivation to try to prove that one statement entailed another statement, to show that ‘There is a person who is omniscient and perfectly free’ entails ‘There is a person who is perfectly good’. But because I’m a bit unclear on how the logic of conditional … The Perfect Goodness of God – Again (Part 2)
How the Distinction between Deductive vs. Inductive Arguments Can Mask Uncertainty
Everyone who has taken a philosophy 101 class has learned the distinction between deductive and inductive arguments. It goes like this. Only deductive arguments may be valid; an argument is valid if and only if the truth of its premises guarantees the truth of its premises. Otherwise, the argument is invalid. If an argument is … How the Distinction between Deductive vs. Inductive Arguments Can Mask Uncertainty
ex-apologist: On a Common Apologetic Fallacy
The fallacy sketched above occurs so frequently in the apologetics literature that I hereby label it the Apologetics Fallacy. The Apologetics Fallacy is the dialectical fallacy of assuming, in contexts of the sort sketched above, that because one has shown that D isn’t a rebutting defeater for P, one has thereby shown that D isn’t an undercutting … ex-apologist: On a Common Apologetic Fallacy
Basic Structure of My Evidential Arguments
Epistemic Interpretation of ProbabilityIn this article series, when I refer to probability I shall be adopting the epistemic interpretation of probability. The epistemic probability of a statement is a measure of the probability that a statement is true, given some stock of knowledge. In other words, epistemic probability measures a person’s degree of belief in … Basic Structure of My Evidential Arguments
The Possibility of Proving the Non-Existence of Something
In a recent blog entry, theistic philosopher William Vallicella criticizes a statement made by psychologist Paul Vitz, in which Vitz asserted that it is “intrinsically impossible” to “prove the non-existence of anything.” As Vallicelli correctly points out: “But surely there are things whose nonexistence can be proven. The nonexistence of a round square can be … The Possibility of Proving the Non-Existence of Something