A Defense of Miracles: Part 2 of 3
Added: Dec 1, 2008
Author: telemantros
Duration: 8:3
Video 2:Part 2 establishes a criteria for discovering miracles and then begins an evaluation of objections against miracles via Spinzoa and Hume.Stephan Bilunskyj's Framework:1) The evidence for the occurrence of E is at least as good as it is for other acceptable but unusual events similarly distinct in time and space from the point of the inquiry.2) An account of the natures and/or powers of the causally relevant natural agents, such that they could account for E, would be clumsily and ad hoc.3) There is no evidence except the inexplicability of E for one or more natural agents which could produce E.4) There is some justification for a supernatural explanation for E, independent of the inexplicability of E.Bayes Theorum: (----) are used for spacing only, they are not part of the equation.Pr(M|E&B)-------------Pr(M|B)-------------Pr(E|M&B)______________ = ____________x_______________Pr(not-M|E&B)---------- Pr(not-M|B)-----Pr(E| not-M&B)References:Lewis, C.S. (1947). Miracles, HarperCollins Publishers: New York, NYCraig, W. L. (1984). Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, Crossway Books: Wheaton, Ill. Bilunskyj, S. (1982). God, Nature, and the Concept of Miracle, University of Notre Dame Press: Notre Dame, INLess, G. (1776). Wahrheit der christlichen religion, Gottingen: GermanyHouttville, C. F. (1740). La religion chretienne prouvee par les faits, Mercier & Boudet: ParisMusic: Nara by E.S. Prometheus, Pompeii by E.S. PrometheusPhotos: Curtsey of google.comVideo 1:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euVudiWBeKMVideo 3:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jROM0pKXFqQ
Channel: People
Tags:
baye's
god
law
logic
mathematics
miracle
natural
physics
quantum
theorem
Rating: 5.00 (6 ratings)
Views: 66
Comments: 0
Added: Dec 1, 2008
Author: telemantros
Duration: 8:3
Video 2:Part 2 establishes a criteria for discovering miracles and then begins an evaluation of objections against miracles via Spinzoa and Hume.Stephan Bilunskyj's Framework:1) The evidence for the occurrence of E is at least as good as it is for other acceptable but unusual events similarly distinct in time and space from the point of the inquiry.2) An account of the natures and/or powers of the causally relevant natural agents, such that they could account for E, would be clumsily and ad hoc.3) There is no evidence except the inexplicability of E for one or more natural agents which could produce E.4) There is some justification for a supernatural explanation for E, independent of the inexplicability of E.Bayes Theorum: (----) are used for spacing only, they are not part of the equation.Pr(M|E&B)-------------Pr(M|B)-------------Pr(E|M&B)______________ = ____________x_______________Pr(not-M|E&B)---------- Pr(not-M|B)-----Pr(E| not-M&B)References:Lewis, C.S. (1947). Miracles, HarperCollins Publishers: New York, NYCraig, W. L. (1984). Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, Crossway Books: Wheaton, Ill. Bilunskyj, S. (1982). God, Nature, and the Concept of Miracle, University of Notre Dame Press: Notre Dame, INLess, G. (1776). Wahrheit der christlichen religion, Gottingen: GermanyHouttville, C. F. (1740). La religion chretienne prouvee par les faits, Mercier & Boudet: ParisMusic: Nara by E.S. Prometheus, Pompeii by E.S. PrometheusPhotos: Curtsey of google.comVideo 1:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euVudiWBeKMVideo 3:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jROM0pKXFqQ
Channel: People
Tags: baye's god law logic mathematics miracle natural physics quantum theorem
Rating: 5.00 (6 ratings) Views: 66 Comments: 0
