@tommyallen99 "Miracles are possible, therefore they exist" was never said by Craig nor by any christian I know. The point is NOT a conclusion that miracles do exist simply because they are possible. The point is that if one cannot demonstrate that there is a logical impossibility that miracles do exist, he/she is unjustified in affirming they don't exist, because such person would be relying on faith after having disregarded faith's validity, what is clearly irrational.
And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. (Mark 16:20) "For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?" (Hebrews 2:2-4) "But why did He [the resurrected Lord] appear not to all, but to the Apostles only? Because to the many it would have seemed a mere apparition, inasmuch as they understood not the secret of the mystery. For if the disciples themselves were at first incredulous and were troubled, and needed the evidence of actual touch with the hand, and of His eating with them, how would it have fared in all likelihood with the multitude? For this reason therefore by the miracles [wrought by the Apostles] He renders the evidence of His Resurrection unequivocal, so that not only the men of those times--this is what would come of the ocular proof--but also all men thereafter, should be certain of the fact, that He was risen. Upon this ground also we argue with unbelievers. For if He did not rise again, but remains dead, how did the Apostles perform miracles in His name? But they did not, say you, perform miracles? How then was our religion instituted? For this certainly they will not controvert nor impugn what we see with our eyes: so that when they say that no miracles took place, they inflict a worse stab upon themselves. For this would be the greatest of miracles, that without any miracles, the whole world should have eagerly come to be taken in the nets of twelve poor and illiterate men. For not by wealth of money, not by wisdom of words, not by any thing else of this kind, did the fishermen prevail; so that objectors must even against their will acknowledge that there was in these men a Divine power, for no human strength could ever possibly effect such great results." -John Chrysostom, c. 349-407 (HOMILIES ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES)
Michael Hyden, there is a difference between epistemic possibility and metaphysical possibility. Your comment was referencing the first one. Moreover, if God were directly observable by empirical means, then He wouldn't be God because God by definition is immaterial! Empirical science isn't the only option for considering whether something exists or whether we can have knowledge, there are other sources of knowledge on which science depends to be conducted.
It is shocking how much atheists don't understand the difference between "the option should not be discarded" and "the option should be accepted". The theistic arguments for "not discarding" are different from the arguments for accepting. Those are two different phases in argumentation! But too often we theists claim "you are not justified in discarding" and atheists understand as if it were"you have to accept it imediately!"
Furthermore, Hume, and atheists generally, are not closed to the possibility of miracles, but rather think that belief in miracles can never (or at least rarely) be accepted justifiably. Based on biological and historical evidence, we conclude that any resurrection is incredibly highly improbable, nearly to impossibility. In order to contradict that, we would need evidence enough that it would be more unlikely that the evidence were faulty than that the event had actually occurred.
As a linguist myself, I can tell you the word "miracle" has taken on far too much baggage to have a meaningful discussion. I would have to strip away all that before we come to a real discussion. René Descartes and the so-called 'enlightenment' poisoned the discussion with methodological prejudice regarding a definition of that word in our culture. Many would say, "a miracle is any event that defies the normal laws of nature." Fact is, science has discovered that what we have considered "laws" are not laws at all. They are tendencies given certain contexts. Since we have only one earth to study, and this earth is remarkably a far too small sample to assert upon "the universe" it is a fallacy of logical argument to take one tiny spec of the universe and impose its conditions on the rest of the much larger set. Rather than saying, "what do we consider natural law," and asserting the assumption as the standard by which we evaluate events as miraculous or not, more profitable, and logically consistent, is the question, "what do we observe, and what do we observe about how it got that way?" Not philosophic presupposition, not evolutionary origins non-sense, not even theology. Simple, plain, corroborated, studied, tested, and demonstrated science. The problem most scientists have is not collecting the data, but inferring from it. So, coming from the usual discussion, I would be considered as someone who believes everything is a miracle, cause science confirmed that there CANNOT be an infinite regression of past events leading to today (otherwise today could never have been reached, which is absurd) so it must have all been specially initiated from nothing, even our big-bang theorists have come to this conclusion (i.e. the universe cannot be eternal). And this special initiation would have been a so-called 'violation' of the order that existed when there was nothing, i.e. miraculous. And therefore, in light this understanding, if everything is considered a miraculous coming out of nothing, then nothing is miraculous by comparison, i.e. equal ontological status. Negating the entire idea of 'miracle' from its premise. So it proves itself as a mere convention of speech rather than a coherent argument.
JR Woods Of course, the necessary inferences from this are: if everything is miraculous, and a violation of the nature from which it derived, the only explanation of its arrival is an intelligent initiating process. Additionally, if nothing is a miracle by ontological comparison then we may conclude that so-called 'miraculous' activity is the usual activity of that initiatory intelligence.
The argument begs the question, "Is the existence of a god actually possible?" Sure it is unknown to us whether there is a supernatural deity that is primarily unobservable by any means. Given that we don't have empirical evidence for the existence of such a thing, we can not even know if its existence is actually a possibility (something able to be done in reality).
Also, the corroboratory evidence given at the time of the ressurrection is tremendously compelling for "the event" itself. Take away the idea of it being a resurrection and identify it with something more mundane and there would be few (even Atheists) denying the event. Hence, if the reson why you deny the resurrection is based on its being a supernatural occurance and you are inclined to reject such things, then you will have to do so for some other biased subjective reason.
No sir, my comment addressed all defined versions of a possibility. I granted that the existence of a deity could be possible, (this includes the metaphysical obviously) However, that does not mean that we should assume there is a deity---or which deity, without the proper evidence for it. That being empirical evidence, which is the best way to identify reality. CHALLENGE: If you make a counterpoint to this post, do so that I may know what your counterpoint is without empirical evidence for it.
FreeSilio, any person making a claim that either miracles are possible or impossible bears a burden of proof. Your rhetorical ploys are just semantic games and you can't seem to conduct yourself in a mature manner by slandering a theist when you said "Then show it to us, or shut your arrogant liar's face up". Don't expect anybody who is a theist to take you seriously if you can't be mature enough to be civil. Otherwise you're acting childish.
Craig fails to understand Hume's argument, which is essentially an application of Occam's razor. Given a miraculous and a non-miraculous explanation for a claim (e.g. divine intervention vs. deception/misunderstanding) we should always go for the non-miraculous, as this, by definition is more likely, and requires fewer assumptions. With the lottery example, we have good reason for trusting the news (high prior probability) and we can corroborate the story with other sources.
Why does it always seem like atheists and athesist leaning skeptics can never follow good logic? Both you and Nadav are not listening just anxious to rebut. The point (which is logical) that Craig makes is that Historians don't generally like to use the word prob. as it presupposes certainity for its boundary limits. What could be given in a historical context? W/ lottery example, "just how lotteries work," the limits are known. With the resurrection the limits are in the mind and will of God.
Love seeing all the haters congregate on videos they dont believe in, thus wasting their time. As far as I know a literal miracle has not happened since Jesus Christ was here in the flesh, and it was only done to show people his power, for them to understand they are witnessing God doing good works for his people so they would believe, for whithout God we have no future.
Darth Bane you are confusing a miracle with something resembling a magic trick. Even Jesus said after the multiplication of the loaves and fish that his disciples could do greater things. Was the blind man of Jerico physically blind or did he not understand (see) he was being mocked?
At 00:30 of the video he says EXACTLY what I'm criticizing. The burden of proof is -once more- on your side, so all we can say is: show us the evidence that your god exists or shut up.
Craig has not claimed that he's justified in believing in miracles simply on the basis of them being possible, you're critiquing a straw man. You have to give a proof or argument for atheism before you can justifiably say that miracles are impossible, otherwise you're just asserting. Haha including the tooth fairy was a funny joke on your part since that means you're still drinking the punch of scientism. If you think arguments for God's existence fail, then mention some and we can discuss.
I am sorry if I misunderstood the point of this discussion. Since the existence of god is possible, and we cannot be sure of what is and what is not possible, then god's possibility is infinitely arguable. And pointless. Sorry again about "mental retardation," that was not fair of me to say, or accurate. It's fine to keep an open mind, true, and it is absolutely possible that god exists, as do miracles, unicorns, and anything else conceivable. Or not. Pointless. But fun to argue! G'night.
Wrong logic. I'm not making any claim but simply rejecting the UNPROVEN claims that god exist and miracles can occour. The burden of proof is on the person making those claims. Sorry. You're just playing the same old dirty trick of shifting the burden of proof used by this sophist. That's childish if you dont understand those simple fact, or even dishonest if you understand what you're doing (and by the way: WLC understands it).
I agree: Craig (wilfully?) fails to understand Hume's argument. The lottery example is an invalid one. The report of a lottery winner is not "extraordinary": IT'S JUST HOW LOTTERIES WORK! On the other side there's not a single claim of resurrections supported by evidence: that's extraordinaly and IT'S NOT HOW LIFE WORKS! Comparing those two events as being both "extraordinary" ones is just a semantic trick based on an ambiguous word (and I suspect that Craig is smart enough to know it ;-)).
Craig's argument is that since god is possible, miracles are possible too (which in craig's mind implies that he's justified to believe in miracles). We can't even discard the possibility of the tooth fairy. So what? Nice trick, silly billy, but it doesn't work with rational minds. Please provide evidence of your god and miracles, and stop trying to deceive people shifting the burden of proof, which has never been met by your superstitions. Miracles never occourred until you provide evidence.
Craig's refute of Hume with his lottery example is so very stupid. It's like someone rolling 100 dice and declaring it a highly improbable event because the odds of the rolled number combination. Perhaps the microscopic uniqueness of every snowflake make each and every one like a miracle too... Rediculess.
@@cdaaat6036 If you want Craig's argument to be valid, Craig must first demonstrate the existence of the supernatural. Not just refer to it as a statistical likelihood. That argument gets us nowhere because anyone could believe what they feel they want to believe.
Craig's attempt to reject Hume's argument is just a semantic shift between two different meanings of the word "extraordinary", namely 'improbable' in the case of the lottery and 'never proven to have ever happened' (nor even to be possible) in the case of the alleged resurrections.. Having a winner in a lottery is what ordilarly happens. It simply confirms what we know about how lotteries work. The random extraction of a winner is JUST the aim of lotteries. Being the lucky one is a rare event, but it's possible, and mathematicians can easily put a number on this probability On the other hand claims about alleged 'resurrections' have been made several times by many ancient religions (starting at least from Horus resurrecting in ancient Egypt thousands of years before the resurrections claimed by the Gospel), but none of those claims has ever been supported by evidence, and it would furthermore contraddict everything we know about how life works. Sorry, Mr Craig: you still need some ACTUAL evidence to support your religion, and your claims are still extraordinary.
FreeSilio There is no semantic shift. In both cases, the probability of the event is considered low because it contradicts our prior experience; they're both, from the perspective of probility theory, improbable. The defect in Hume's argument is that it cannot differentiate between the two, even though Hume claims it can.
Matko Gjurašin You're playing the same semantic trick! ROFL "In both cases, the probability of the event is considered low because it contradicts our prior experience" No. The fact that lotteries have a winner doesn't contraddict our experience: we know that every lottery have a winner. On the other side resurrections actually contraddict our experience, since we know that when people die they're dead. That's why comparing the two cases is incorrect. "BTW, 'extraordinary' doesn't mean unproven [...] you invented" I didn't 'invent' it. I'm just POINTING OUT that Craig is applying this label of 'extraordinary' to both a low probability event like winning a lottery and to an event which has never been proven to happen, like an alleged resurrection. ...and that's the semantic shift I was talking about, which makes his analogy tricky.
FreeSilio Lotteries do contradict our experience - at least mine. I never won the lottery, so it's not part of my experience. I rely on other peoples' testimonies, which, according to Hume, I'm rational to reject because what's in them runs counter to my personal experience. And Craig didn't make an analogy.
Matko Gjurašin "Lotteries do contradict our experience - at least mine. I never won the lottery" No, they don't.. We know that lotteries have winners. Even you know that. The fact that you didn't win is just irrelevant, since the possibility of winning is REAL. We know that people ACTUALLY win lotteries. We can even do the math about the probabilities of winning. On the other side we don't have any case of alleged 'resurrections', therefore as long as we know the probability is ZERO! "I rely on other peoples' testimonies" That's another way to play the same semantic trick! Craig did it comparing the winning of a lottery and resurrections as "extraordinary events". You did it the first time cmparing them as "contraddicting our prior experience", and now you're playing the same trick comparing them as things that you know only "relying on testimonies". ...and not even your last attempt works, since you're comparing something that happens in reality with something never proven to happen in the first place. sorry, my friend: semantic tricks don't work with me. "And Craig didn't make an analogy" If you don't even understand that comparing two things like Craig did is 'making an analogy' (indeed a FLAWED one as I've shown many times) the problem is yours.
Miracles are possible, therefore, they exist. Talking walnuts, chimerae, and boats that fly are all possible, therefore, they too must exist. It is possible that I am a whale made of clay who eats street signs, therefore, I must be that. This is mental retardation by choice, and it makes my head hurt. Ahura-mazda bless you all.
It is shocking how much atheists don't understand the difference between "the option should not be discarded" and "the option should be accepted". The theistic arguments for "not discarding" are different from the arguments for accepting. Those are two different phases in argumentation! But too often we theists claim "you are not justified in discarding" and atheists understand as if it were"you have to accept it imediately!"
@tommyallen99 "Miracles are possible, therefore they exist" was never said by Craig nor by any christian I know. The point is NOT a conclusion that miracles do exist simply because they are possible. The point is that if one cannot demonstrate that there is a logical impossibility that miracles do exist, he/she is unjustified in affirming they don't exist, because such person would be relying on faith after having disregarded faith's validity, what is clearly irrational.
And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. (Mark 16:20)
"For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?" (Hebrews 2:2-4)
"But why did He [the resurrected Lord] appear not to all, but to the Apostles only? Because to the many it would have seemed a mere apparition, inasmuch as they understood not the secret of the mystery. For if the disciples themselves were at first incredulous and were troubled, and needed the evidence of actual touch with the hand, and of His eating with them, how would it have fared in all likelihood with the multitude? For this reason therefore by the miracles [wrought by the Apostles] He renders the evidence of His Resurrection unequivocal, so that not only the men of those times--this is what would come of the ocular proof--but also all men thereafter, should be certain of the fact, that He was risen. Upon this ground also we argue with unbelievers. For if He did not rise again, but remains dead, how did the Apostles perform miracles in His name? But they did not, say you, perform miracles? How then was our religion instituted? For this certainly they will not controvert nor impugn what we see with our eyes: so that when they say that no miracles took place, they inflict a worse stab upon themselves. For this would be the greatest of miracles, that without any miracles, the whole world should have eagerly come to be taken in the nets of twelve poor and illiterate men. For not by wealth of money, not by wisdom of words, not by any thing else of this kind, did the fishermen prevail; so that objectors must even against their will acknowledge that there was in these men a Divine power, for no human strength could ever possibly effect such great results." -John Chrysostom, c. 349-407 (HOMILIES ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES)
Michael Hyden, there is a difference between epistemic possibility and metaphysical possibility. Your comment was referencing the first one. Moreover, if God were directly observable by empirical means, then He wouldn't be God because God by definition is immaterial!
Empirical science isn't the only option for considering whether something exists or whether we can have knowledge, there are other sources of knowledge on which science depends to be conducted.
It is shocking how much atheists don't understand the difference between "the option should not be discarded" and "the option should be accepted". The theistic arguments for "not discarding" are different from the arguments for accepting. Those are two different phases in argumentation! But too often we theists claim "you are not justified in discarding" and atheists understand as if it were"you have to accept it imediately!"
Furthermore, Hume, and atheists generally, are not closed to the possibility of miracles, but rather think that belief in miracles can never (or at least rarely) be accepted justifiably. Based on biological and historical evidence, we conclude that any resurrection is incredibly highly improbable, nearly to impossibility. In order to contradict that, we would need evidence enough that it would be more unlikely that the evidence were faulty than that the event had actually occurred.
As a linguist myself, I can tell you the word "miracle" has taken on far too much baggage to have a meaningful discussion. I would have to strip away all that before we come to a real discussion. René Descartes and the so-called 'enlightenment' poisoned the discussion with methodological prejudice regarding a definition of that word in our culture. Many would say, "a miracle is any event that defies the normal laws of nature." Fact is, science has discovered that what we have considered "laws" are not laws at all. They are tendencies given certain contexts. Since we have only one earth to study, and this earth is remarkably a far too small sample to assert upon "the universe" it is a fallacy of logical argument to take one tiny spec of the universe and impose its conditions on the rest of the much larger set. Rather than saying, "what do we consider natural law," and asserting the assumption as the standard by which we evaluate events as miraculous or not, more profitable, and logically consistent, is the question, "what do we observe, and what do we observe about how it got that way?" Not philosophic presupposition, not evolutionary origins non-sense, not even theology. Simple, plain, corroborated, studied, tested, and demonstrated science. The problem most scientists have is not collecting the data, but inferring from it. So, coming from the usual discussion, I would be considered as someone who believes everything is a miracle, cause science confirmed that there CANNOT be an infinite regression of past events leading to today (otherwise today could never have been reached, which is absurd) so it must have all been specially initiated from nothing, even our big-bang theorists have come to this conclusion (i.e. the universe cannot be eternal). And this special initiation would have been a so-called 'violation' of the order that existed when there was nothing, i.e. miraculous. And therefore, in light this understanding, if everything is considered a miraculous coming out of nothing, then nothing is miraculous by comparison, i.e. equal ontological status. Negating the entire idea of 'miracle' from its premise. So it proves itself as a mere convention of speech rather than a coherent argument.
JR Woods Of course, the necessary inferences from this are: if everything is miraculous, and a violation of the nature from which it derived, the only explanation of its arrival is an intelligent initiating process. Additionally, if nothing is a miracle by ontological comparison then we may conclude that so-called 'miraculous' activity is the usual activity of that initiatory intelligence.
The argument begs the question, "Is the existence of a god actually possible?" Sure it is unknown to us whether there is a supernatural deity that is primarily unobservable by any means. Given that we don't have empirical evidence for the existence of such a thing, we can not even know if its existence is actually a possibility (something able to be done in reality).
Also, the corroboratory evidence given at the time of the ressurrection is tremendously compelling for "the event" itself. Take away the idea of it being a resurrection and identify it with something more mundane and there would be few (even Atheists) denying the event. Hence, if the reson why you deny the resurrection is based on its being a supernatural occurance and you are inclined to reject such things, then you will have to do so for some other biased subjective reason.
No sir, my comment addressed all defined versions of a possibility. I granted that the existence of a deity could be possible, (this includes the metaphysical obviously) However, that does not mean that we should assume there is a deity---or which deity, without the proper evidence for it. That being empirical evidence, which is the best way to identify reality. CHALLENGE: If you make a counterpoint to this post, do so that I may know what your counterpoint is without empirical evidence for it.
FreeSilio, any person making a claim that either miracles are possible or impossible bears a burden of proof. Your rhetorical ploys are just semantic games and you can't seem to conduct yourself in a mature manner by slandering a theist when you said "Then show it to us, or shut your arrogant liar's face up". Don't expect anybody who is a theist to take you seriously if you can't be mature enough to be civil. Otherwise you're acting childish.
Craig fails to understand Hume's argument, which is essentially an application of Occam's razor. Given a miraculous and a non-miraculous explanation for a claim (e.g. divine intervention vs. deception/misunderstanding) we should always go for the non-miraculous, as this, by definition is more likely, and requires fewer assumptions. With the lottery example, we have good reason for trusting the news (high prior probability) and we can corroborate the story with other sources.
Why does it always seem like atheists and athesist leaning skeptics can never follow good logic? Both you and Nadav are not listening just anxious to rebut. The point (which is logical) that Craig makes is that Historians don't generally like to use the word prob. as it presupposes certainity for its boundary limits. What could be given in a historical context? W/ lottery example, "just how lotteries work," the limits are known. With the resurrection the limits are in the mind and will of God.
"there are other sources of knowledge"
Which ones?
Love seeing all the haters congregate on videos they dont believe in, thus wasting their time.
As far as I know a literal miracle has not happened since Jesus Christ was here in the flesh, and it was only done to show people his power, for them to understand they are witnessing God doing good works for his people so they would believe, for whithout God we have no future.
Darth Bane you are confusing a miracle with something resembling a magic trick. Even Jesus said after the multiplication of the loaves and fish that his disciples could do greater things. Was the blind man of Jerico physically blind or did he not understand (see) he was being mocked?
A literalist loses the entire essence of what the bible is about. It's not a book about some sort of magician
At 00:30 of the video he says EXACTLY what I'm criticizing.
The burden of proof is -once more- on your side, so all we can say is: show us the evidence that your god exists or shut up.
I wish it were that simple freesilio but the religious will keep on with the fairy stories.
Craig has not claimed that he's justified in believing in miracles simply on the basis of them being possible, you're critiquing a straw man. You have to give a proof or argument for atheism before you can justifiably say that miracles are impossible, otherwise you're just asserting.
Haha including the tooth fairy was a funny joke on your part since that means you're still drinking the punch of scientism.
If you think arguments for God's existence fail, then mention some and we can discuss.
I am sorry if I misunderstood the point of this discussion. Since the existence of god is possible, and we cannot be sure of what is and what is not possible, then god's possibility is infinitely arguable. And pointless. Sorry again about "mental retardation," that was not fair of me to say, or accurate. It's fine to keep an open mind, true, and it is absolutely possible that god exists, as do miracles, unicorns, and anything else conceivable. Or not. Pointless. But fun to argue! G'night.
Wrong logic. I'm not making any claim but simply rejecting the UNPROVEN claims that god exist and miracles can occour. The burden of proof is on the person making those claims.
Sorry. You're just playing the same old dirty trick of shifting the burden of proof used by this sophist.
That's childish if you dont understand those simple fact, or even dishonest if you understand what you're doing (and by the way: WLC understands it).
I agree: Craig (wilfully?) fails to understand Hume's argument.
The lottery example is an invalid one. The report of a lottery winner is not "extraordinary": IT'S JUST HOW LOTTERIES WORK!
On the other side there's not a single claim of resurrections supported by evidence: that's extraordinaly and IT'S NOT HOW LIFE WORKS!
Comparing those two events as being both "extraordinary" ones is just a semantic trick based on an ambiguous word (and I suspect that Craig is smart enough to know it ;-)).
Craig's argument is that since god is possible, miracles are possible too (which in craig's mind implies that he's justified to believe in miracles). We can't even discard the possibility of the tooth fairy. So what?
Nice trick, silly billy, but it doesn't work with rational minds. Please provide evidence of your god and miracles, and stop trying to deceive people shifting the burden of proof, which has never been met by your superstitions.
Miracles never occourred until you provide evidence.
Craig's refute of Hume with his lottery example is so very stupid. It's like someone rolling 100 dice and declaring it a highly improbable event because the odds of the rolled number combination. Perhaps the microscopic uniqueness of every snowflake make each and every one like a miracle too... Rediculess.
"With the resurrection the limits are in the mind and will of God"
No proven god, no proven resurrection. Invalid argument.
FreeSilio woah, you are a very smart man. Better then all the other guys!!!!!!
@@cdaaat6036 If you want Craig's argument to be valid, Craig must first demonstrate the existence of the supernatural. Not just refer to it as a statistical likelihood. That argument gets us nowhere because anyone could believe what they feel they want to believe.
Craig's attempt to reject Hume's argument is just a semantic shift between two different meanings of the word "extraordinary", namely 'improbable' in the case of the lottery and 'never proven to have ever happened' (nor even to be possible) in the case of the alleged resurrections..
Having a winner in a lottery is what ordilarly happens. It simply confirms what we know about how lotteries work. The random extraction of a winner is JUST the aim of lotteries. Being the lucky one is a rare event, but it's possible, and mathematicians can easily put a number on this probability
On the other hand claims about alleged 'resurrections' have been made several times by many ancient religions (starting at least from Horus resurrecting in ancient Egypt thousands of years before the resurrections claimed by the Gospel), but none of those claims has ever been supported by evidence, and it would furthermore contraddict everything we know about how life works.
Sorry, Mr Craig: you still need some ACTUAL evidence to support your religion, and your claims are still extraordinary.
FreeSilio There is no semantic shift. In both cases, the probability of the event is considered low because it contradicts our prior experience; they're both, from the perspective of probility theory, improbable. The defect in Hume's argument is that it cannot differentiate between the two, even though Hume claims it can.
FreeSilio BTW, 'extraordinary' doesn't mean unproven. No one uses this word in such manner. It's something you invented.
Matko Gjurašin You're playing the same semantic trick! ROFL
"In both cases, the probability of the event is considered low because it contradicts our prior experience"
No. The fact that lotteries have a winner doesn't contraddict our experience: we know that every lottery have a winner. On the other side resurrections actually contraddict our experience, since we know that when people die they're dead. That's why comparing the two cases is incorrect.
"BTW, 'extraordinary' doesn't mean unproven [...] you invented"
I didn't 'invent' it. I'm just POINTING OUT that Craig is applying this label of 'extraordinary' to both a low probability event like winning a lottery and to an event which has never been proven to happen, like an alleged resurrection. ...and that's the semantic shift I was talking about, which makes his analogy tricky.
FreeSilio Lotteries do contradict our experience - at least mine. I never won the lottery, so it's not part of my experience. I rely on other peoples' testimonies, which, according to Hume, I'm rational to reject because what's in them runs counter to my personal experience. And Craig didn't make an analogy.
Matko Gjurašin "Lotteries do contradict our experience - at least mine. I never won the lottery"
No, they don't.. We know that lotteries have winners. Even you know that. The fact that you didn't win is just irrelevant, since the possibility of winning is REAL. We know that people ACTUALLY win lotteries. We can even do the math about the probabilities of winning.
On the other side we don't have any case of alleged 'resurrections', therefore as long as we know the probability is ZERO!
"I rely on other peoples' testimonies"
That's another way to play the same semantic trick! Craig did it comparing the winning of a lottery and resurrections as "extraordinary events". You did it the first time cmparing them as "contraddicting our prior experience", and now you're playing the same trick comparing them as things that you know only "relying on testimonies". ...and not even your last attempt works, since you're comparing something that happens in reality with something never proven to happen in the first place.
sorry, my friend: semantic tricks don't work with me.
"And Craig didn't make an analogy"
If you don't even understand that comparing two things like Craig did is 'making an analogy' (indeed a FLAWED one as I've shown many times) the problem is yours.
Miracles are possible, therefore, they exist. Talking walnuts, chimerae, and boats that fly are all possible, therefore, they too must exist. It is possible that I am a whale made of clay who eats street signs, therefore, I must be that. This is mental retardation by choice, and it makes my head hurt. Ahura-mazda bless you all.
It is shocking how much atheists don't understand the difference between "the option should not be discarded" and "the option should be accepted". The theistic arguments for "not discarding" are different from the arguments for accepting. Those are two different phases in argumentation! But too often we theists claim "you are not justified in discarding" and atheists understand as if it were"you have to accept it imediately!"