miracles

Empty Defense of an Empty Tomb: A Reply to Anne A. Kim’s Misunderstandings

I finished this essay many years ago, but due to my hiatus never got around to publishing it until now. It will be announced on the Secular Web’s “What’s New?” page very soon. It can be accessed immediately by using the link below, however.Abstract: William Lane Craig has argued for the historicity of Jesus’ empty Empty Defense of an Empty Tomb: A Reply to Anne A. Kim’s Misunderstandings

William Lane Craig on the Prior Probability of the Resurrection

Prior to examining the specific evidence for and against Jesus’ resurrection, how probable is it that God raised Jesus from the dead? According to many Christian apologists, the answer is “not low” — at least, the answer is “not low” for theists. Are they right? For example, here is William Lane Craig: Dr. Ehrman just William Lane Craig on the Prior Probability of the Resurrection

William Lane Craig’s Critique of Bart Ehrman on the Probability of Miracles

As the saying goes, I have to “call ’em as I see ’em.” I just read, for the first time, the transcript of William Lane Craig’s debate with Bart Ehrman. I read, with great interest, Craig’s first rebuttal, where he makes extensive use of Bayes’s Theorem (BT) to critique two of Ehrman’s statements. Those two William Lane Craig’s Critique of Bart Ehrman on the Probability of Miracles

Hume’s Beautiful Argument

In two of my classes this term we have been reading Hume’s An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Whenever I read his Section X, “Of Miracles,” I am once again struck by the beauty, simplicity, and the power of his argument. Oceans of ink have been spilled by philosophers commenting on this argument, and many of Hume’s Beautiful Argument

LINK: A Bayesian Analysis of the Cumulative Effects of Independent Eyewitness Testimony for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

I just discovered this essay by John DePoe which defends a Bayesian technique to measure the cumulative effect of independent eyewitness testimony for the Resurrection. Check it out: Resurrection.pdf I think this article could be of interest to anyone interested in Bayesian approaches to evidence for or against God’s existence, not just people interested in LINK: A Bayesian Analysis of the Cumulative Effects of Independent Eyewitness Testimony for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Miracles and Antecedent Probabilities

Victor Reppert responded succinctly but thoughtfully to my posting on ECREE (the principle that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”): There is a sense in which I agree with the ECREE thesis, it is just that I don’t believe that there is any objective way of proving that one set of antecedent probabilities is rational and Miracles and Antecedent Probabilities

Victor on Weird Stuff

Victor Reppert has been kind enough to reply on his Dangerous Idea blog to my comments on his earlier posting. I’m replying to his reply, which will evoke a counter-reply, which will get a counter-counter-reply…until one or the other of us has some real work to do and has to break it off. Sigh. That Victor on Weird Stuff

Skeptical Approaches to Miracles – Part 4

In Miracles and the Modern Mind, Norman Geisler summarizes Spinoza’s argument about miracles: 1. Miracles are violations of natural laws.2. Natural laws are immutable.3. It is impossible to violate immutable laws.4. Therefore, miracles are impossible.(MMM, p.15) Geisler raises four objections to this argument (MMM, p.21). Before considering any objections, however, we need to determine whether Skeptical Approaches to Miracles – Part 4