Ouch! LINK … [Read more...]
Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence (ECREE), Part 7: Christian Apologist Glenn Miller Agrees!
Not all theists or even Christians reject ECREE. One example of a Christian apologist who accepts ECREE is my friend Glenn Miller. Glenn writes:I personally agree with this principle...and so does God, apparently...why else would there be such an emphasis on it in the bible? The only issue I would have with the skeptic would be how 'extraordinary' does it have to be before it counts as 'extraordinary'?I address this issue in my reply to William Lane Craig. Glenn then proceeds to argue that the … [Read more...]
Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence (ECREE), Part 6: Is ECREE False? A Reply to Greg Koukl and Melinda Penner (continued)
(continued from Part 5)Penner's Third Rebuttal: A third response to the demand recognizes that very extraordinary events happen all the time if the co-occurrence of several features in a state of affairs is evaluated probabilistically.I agree with this sentence (if "extraordinary events" means "improbable or very improbable events"), but this does not in any way undermine ECREE.Penner also writes: "So no matter how extraordinary the event, no explanation is needed because extraordinary events … [Read more...]
HT: Tris Stock … [Read more...]
Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence (ECREE), Part 5: Is ECREE False? A Reply to Greg Koukl and Melinda Penner
In my first postin this series, I offered a Bayesian interpretation of the principle, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (ECREE). Greg Koukl, however, disagrees with ECREE. He recently explained why on his radio show (click here for audio); also, Melinda Penner, a member of Koukl's staff, has written on the issue here and here. In this post, I want to explain why I think Koukl's and Penner's objections to ECREE, like those of William Lane Craig and T. Kurt Jaros, are … [Read more...]