Timeline for Why do we need repetitive demonstration to accept miracles happening?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 19, 2020 at 3:24 | comment | added | Adam Sharpe | More convincing than Ehrman's point, I mean. (Just wanted to clarify, since I reread my previous comment and realized it was a little unclear.) | |
| Feb 19, 2020 at 0:43 | comment | added | Adam Sharpe | @gaazkam Yes I'd agree with what you say. I don't know what to think about the resurrection itself, since I'm not knowledgeable enough about the history. But with regards to this point about method, I believe Craig's argument is more convincing. | |
| Feb 19, 2020 at 0:36 | comment | added | Adam Sharpe | @gaazkam It's been a while since I watched the debate and I don't want to misrepresent Ehrman, but I believe that this is what he says. Craig rebuts by saying something like: okay, maybe as a historian committed to methodological naturalism, you can't accept the resurrection at your day job. But according to more general norms of reasoning that don't presuppose naturalism, you can and should. | |
| Feb 19, 2020 at 0:32 | comment | added | gaazkam | God may literally speak to a methodological naturalist in person and raise his grandfather from the dead in front of his very eyes and a methodological naturalist will still say 'I can't see anything supernatural here?' Because even 100% * 0% = 0%. I can accept that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' but not that NO evidence is sufficient for extraordinary claims. I find it dubious to presuppose the LACK of existence of anything supernatural, if for no other reason then because it seems unwarranted to claim that only this exists what we can observe. | |
| Feb 19, 2020 at 0:22 | comment | added | gaazkam | Thank you for your answer and for your link to the debate. Since it's very late now I'll check it out later BUT there's one thing that surprises me... "Ehrman makes the point that as a historian he is committed to methodological naturalism and so the prior probability of any supernatural explanation must be 0 (on methodological naturalism)." If we put this into Bayes' theory than this will necessarily mean that NO evidence could convince a methodological naturalist that something supernatural may have happened. | |
| Feb 18, 2020 at 20:24 | history | answered | Adam Sharpe | CC BY-SA 4.0 |