| Posted 07/02/12 at 07:12 AM||Reply with quote #1 |
|I came across this blog and there's this video that argues Craig concentrated only on one variable in using the Bayes Theorem and therefore made the probability of Jesus' resurrection certain. The only reason Craig chose this one variable is because it gave him the answer he wanted or at least the answer he wanted his audience to believe. Had he concluded the other variable as he should have done, he wold have shown that the probability of the resurrection of Jesus being true approaches zero (impossible)|
It's best you go to the blog to read it, and watch the video for yourself
Link here: http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/william-lane-craigs-cock-up.html
To be honest, I really don't understand anything related to the Bayes Theorem but I would like to know if the claims are true the blogger and video are making. If not, then where is the mistake?
| Posted 07/02/12 at 09:23 AM||Reply with quote #2 |
|Its not just Dr. Craig that uses Bayes Theorem- for example, see the chapter on the resurrection in the Blackwell Campanion on Natural Theology - Tim and Lydia McGrew make a good case as well.|
I didn't watch your video at the links. Dr. Craig never says Bayes Theorem makes it "certain" (only that it is more probable than not) nor does he really use it to argue for the historicity of the resurrecton. Rather, he uses it mainly to refute Hume's contention that miracles cannot be identified.
I think he makes a good case. Study Bayes Theorem (a standard mathematical theory in the area of probability) and Dr. Craig's use of it and you'll see his arguments make sense.
| Posted 07/02/12 at 09:29 AM||Reply with quote #3 |
Thank you for replying and helping to clarify. Did you read the blog? I definitely don't think Craig was deceiving anyone or hiding behind anything, just wanted some clarification and see whether the blogger was accurate in his claims or not...