ItвЂ™s merely a trivial statement about notation. Otherwise, CraigвЂ™s first argument does not present any evidence the maxim he is claiming is false, is false.

ThatвЂ™s just not вЂњthe probability (h | e).вЂќ So that should have been the only point Craig made here. That looks duplicitous.Д«ecause Mauro did go on to correctly say that вЂњstrong evidenceвЂќ can only be defined as evidence that is extraordinarily improbable if the extraordinary event had not occurred, which means (in correct notation) that Pr(e | not-h&b) must be extraordinarily low. But instead of merely correcting the notation error and acknowledging the maxim is true, Craig appears to turn this into an argument against the maxim. Mauro miswrote Pr (e/h) as Pr (h/e), and incorrectly wrote > 0.5 instead of > Pr (e/not-h). But the only thing Craig could actually correctly mean here is: it is true that вЂњin order to render the claim more probable than not, we need strong evidence in order to counterbalance the claimвЂ™s low prior probability, which is just to say that we need вЂextraordinary evidenceвЂ™ for such a claim,вЂќ but it is incorrect to annotate that as Pr (h/e) > 0.5 the correct notation is Pr (e/h) > Pr (e/not-h). ItвЂ™s hard to tell if this is a deliberate attempt to deceive, or just really phenomenally bad writing. But that cannot be what he means-as that would be mathematical gibberish, and a blatant non sequitur. It looks like he is saying the maxim is false because there is no need to вЂњassignвЂќ a value to Pr (h | e). So Craig is making a very confusing statement here. The statement without that mathematical notation is true. The only thing that is вЂњfalseвЂќ here is the notation (in bold). On Bayesian terms, an вЂњextraordinary claimвЂќ would be one whose prior probability is very low (Pr (h/b) > 0.5), which is just to say that we need вЂextraordinary evidenceвЂ™ for such a claim.вЂќ On that webpage, Craig is asked by вЂњMauroвЂќ how Craig can call this maxim false, and even claim BayesвЂ™ Theorem proves itвЂ™s false, when вЂњevery single Bayesian analysis (besides yours) that IвЂ™ve read about seems to support it.вЂќ And they then present him a correct Bayesian analysis (emphasis mine): We will also be reading, critiquing, discussing, and questioning that whole book in my class on historical methods-which I teach once or twice a year, but the next offering starts tomorrow (so if any of this interests you, please join us!).Д«y contrast, how does CraigвЂ™s analysis go? The Question Posed The following is well supplemented and further explained there, so I highly recommend folks read that first if they want to contend with my point. 72, 177-78, and 252-55 which, incidentally, was peer reviewed, including by a professor of mathematics).

IвЂ™ve already given the correct analysis of this maxim in Proving History (pp. But here I will focus on this, his most вЂњofficialвЂќ written statement on the point, which I take to be a more reliable record of his beliefs and reasoning than recordings of his thoughts off the cuff. 604, вЂњ Do Extraordinary Events Require Extraordinary Evidence?вЂќ HeвЂ™s been taken to task for his dishonest rhetorical games when making this claim in many other places. And has even attempted to вЂњproveвЂќ this with BayesвЂ™ Theorem-in question no. By now I think heвЂ™s a con artist, who plays rhetorical and word games with people on purpose, to sell them on Christ (or really, I think in fact, dupe fellow Christians into not defecting: the actual purpose of most apologetics I have come to believe, as I noted to Randal Rauser).Д«e that as it may, Craig has often stated the maxim that вЂњextraordinary claims require extraordinary evidenceвЂќ is false. LetвЂ™s see how this statement actually pans out, and how Craig is being dishonest in denying it.Д¬raig, of course, is an infamous liar-as in, he regularly traffics in misrepresentation and distortion, and sometimes even outright falsehoods (documentation here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here and thatвЂ™s just a sample for video surveys, try these and these, and now this and this). Notorious Christian apologist William Lane Craig tries to deny this. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Dr william earman