Dr. Craig DESTROYS Hume's Argument Against Miracles with a Simple Analogy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 сен 2024
- In this short clip, Dr. William Lane Craig provides a great analogy to show why David Hume's argument against miracles was never a good argument. According to Craig, Hume's argument is "demonstrably" fallacious.
Link to full interview: • 90-Minute Resurrection...
------------------------------- GIVING -------------------------------
Patreon (monthly giving): / capturingchristianity
Become a CC Member on RUclips: / @capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/c...
Special thanks to all of my supporters for your continued support as I transition into full-time ministry with Capturing Christianity! You guys and gals have no idea how much you mean to me.
--------------------------------- LINKS ---------------------------------
Website: capturingchrist...
Free Christian Apologetics Resources: capturingchris...
The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners (with explanations): capturingchris...
--------------------------------- SOCIAL ---------------------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
-------------------------------- MY GEAR ---------------------------------
I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).
Camera (Nikon Z6): amzn.to/364M1QE
Lens (Nikon 35mm f/1.4G): amzn.to/35WdyDQ
HDMI Adapter (Cam Link 4K): amzn.to/340mUwu
Microphone (Shure SM7B): amzn.to/2VC4rpg
Audio Interface (midiplus Studio 2): amzn.to/33U5u4G
Lights (Neewer 660's with softboxes): amzn.to/2W87tjk
Color Back Lighting (Hue Smart Lights): amzn.to/2MH2L8W
-------------------------------- CONTACT --------------------------------
Email: capturingchrist...
#WilliamLaneCraig #Hume #Miracles
I look forward to Hume's response.
The word exhume comes to mind, but let's not
@@roys1057 Perhaps we could ask Jeremy Bentham, as he's still sitting around somewhere...
@Jimmy The Pink Always present, though.
That would require a miracle
Me too
Hume been real quiet since this dropped
So has Jesus Christ. Only difference is Christ is allegedly still able to speak up in his own defense.
@@mugsofmirth8101My man!
This is a ridiculuous misunderstanding of Hume's argument.
Hume simply points out that there're two opposite hypotheses:
1- The natural laws not being broken , and 2- The miracle having been proven, or, in other words, the natural laws being broken.
You have to make an argument for both sides, and then find out which side has a better and stronger reasoning than the other.
The first side (natural laws not being broken) is a hypothesis that has been proved every single moment since the beginning of the universe. The way I'm pressing on my keyboard and expect the electricity of my laptop to work as it is supposed to work (as the natural laws indicate), the way how we always use our cars and expect them to work as the natural laws indicate them to work, the way how our calculations of space rockets never fail... etc. ALL of these events add MORE reasoning to the first hypothesis which says that the natural laws will work the way they have always been working. Does this mean that IT'S IMPOSSIBLE to break them? no, it just means that mathematically the probability of them being broken is extremely low (0.0001% is never equal to 0%).
Now what about the other side (The miracle having been proven)? it simply should acquire an argument that has a STRONGER possibility of being broken. Can we ever prove this? we can never do that.
Does Craig really think hume is that weak ? "That no testimony be of such kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the Fact, which it endeavours to establish". Hume is considering prior, and her's saying the evidence must be more convincing that the prior. He continues : "When anyone tells me that he saw a dead man returned to life, I immediately confide with myself whether it be more probable that this person would either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact he relates would really have happened."
Hume considers both prior and evidence, and weighs them against each other. This is not a response. If hume says somewhere that miracles cannot occur, I haven't read it. This should not be controversial among christians.
Technically, Hume doesn't say miracles aren't possible. But he sets up the a priori possibility in such a way that he effectively rules them out.
@@glurp1 I agree with your phrasing, and with Hume.
Hume defines a miracle as a violation of a law of nature, and contrary to uniform experience. So he does take uniformity in experience itself as a “full proof” against the occurrence of any miracle. I guess this doesn’t mean that miracles can’t happen, but only that we can never justifiably say they one in fact has (that’s 1 argument he has). I think the problem is with the definition Hume uses for miracle and that the background evidence is already small because of the cumulative effect of Hume’s stance on other issues (doesn’t believe arguments for theism work, time of religious conflict, new mechanistic scientific paradigm, dislike for religious enthusiasm, Presbyterian upbringing, skepticism about induction, etc.)
@@armandvista That definition of miracles as you relayed it sounds right to me. But if you disagree with this definition, do you have a better one?
I don't think you can use Hume's stance on other issues to discount his position. That would be a fallacy.
@@glurp1 He doesn't rule them out, he simply says he won't rule them in on hearsay. This shouldn't be controversial unless miracle believers can't actually provide more than stories to justify their beliefs.
quem veio pelo nando moura?
Eu kkkk
Eu, mas sla o que tô fazendo aqui nem sei falar inglês kkkkkkkk
@@GabrielAraujo-qj6yh 2 kkkk
@@MarcossFelipe Somos tres, tomara que alguem legende kkk
Sim
OK, so the Bayesian analysis just confirms the old adage, which is what Hume's argument really represents, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Certainly a resurrection claim on only background info is extraordinary, which just means it has a very low prior.
Dr. Craig is right that extraordinary evidence, which would mean evidence with a very very low probability of being false, could outweigh this. However, this gets to Hume's claim that human testimony, given the human propensity for dishonesty and error can never have a low enough prior probability of being false to outweigh the exceedingly low prior probability of a miracle claim being true.
Hume would be wrong if he had meant that it was impossible in theory. No, in theory it should be possible to increase one's confidence in human testimony high enough, but in practice it seems extraordinarily unlikely.
Think about it: In a Bayesian analysis the prior probability of a resurrection would mean the probability you would give to a claim of resurrection unsupported by any evidence. So, if I told you my late BFF rose from the dead and appeared to me, but offered no further evidence, I'm sure you would be highly, highly skeptical, no? Yes, of course you would, and that means you are assigning it an
extraordinarily low prior probability of being true. And this is the the same prior you should assign to Jesus' resurrection. (This is an area where I think believers get confused because they are not considering this on background info only, but allowing their pre existing belief in the resurrection to skew the prior on this higher,)
Now , that means any evidence I provide would have to have an even more extraordinarily low probability of being false in order to override your warranted skepticism towards the claimed resurrection of my BFF.
But what is the gospel evidence? It's just nth hand and non independent testimony of a miracle claim recorded in ancient mss from a time when fact checking such claims would have been all but impossible and superstition and credulity were rife. Instead of a very low probability of such evidence being false, given the aforementioned propensity of human being for lying, repeating hearsay, confabulation, telling tall tales, etc., etc. I'd have to say the probability of the info being false is actually rather high, and certainly not extraordinarily low, and beyond a shadow of doubt, IMO, much, much higher than the probability that an actual resurrection took place.
As for Dr. Craig's analogy, it is pretty bad really, because there is no reason to think that a man murdering his wife has anything like as low prior as that which should be assigned to a resurrection/miracle claim. Also, we have no idea what the quality of the evidence presented was, whereas in the case of the evidence for the resurrection we know it is but nth hand and probably not even independent, etc., as explained before. It appears to be just the evangelist's writing down their take on stories that had been circulating by word of mouth for decades. Really? does anybody believe that should be given a lower prior probability of being false than they would assign to an unsupported claim by just anybody that they saw a person who had risen from the dead?
Of course, not.
I’m surprise no one responded to your nicely articulated comment. I think you’re right and would love for someone to convince me otherwise. Well done.
Thank you for your comment.
I am a Christian, but I really like this well-argued reply. I think it's wrong of Craig to say Hume was only considering prior probabilities. My only disagreement is with comparing Jesus's resurrection to the claim that your BFF rose from the dead. I would argue that God's existence and the prior expectation of a prophet's resurrection could be part of background evidence if there is a good independent argument for these claims. This would raise the prior probability of Jesus's resurrection.
@@marksargent3209 I'd agree that there could be other outside factors that might influence one's assessment of the prior for Jesus resurrection, like believing one has a personal relationship with Jesus, but then that's a different argument, really.
@@marksargent3209 Well, yes, it could be possible to have some special background information that could raise your estimation of the prior on Jesus' resurrection, but I think that would be extraneous and not admissible in this argument. But if that information is belief based on one's prior belief that Jesus was resurrected, then it would just be a circular argument.
Sadly, even for the high school student this is inadequate. It misses Hume's main attack, which is that any subsequent evidence we are presented with for a miracle will not be large enough to outweigh the evidence for the laws of nature remaining constant. The latter being evidence we have prior to considering the evidence for a specific miracle claim- so I can see what Craig is getting at here, it's just incomplete because it doesn't explain how the evidence for a specific miracle claim can defeat the evidence for the laws of nature remaining constant. The high school student needs to be aware this is Hume's main attack, even if the solution involving probability (which Craig has expounded elsewhere such as in the Reasonable Faith book) may be above their level.
well, the high school student, may be prompted at responding that an inquiry that denies any evidence that could come against the previously held notion, could not be called an inquiry, but a fraud. The same argument of Hume could be reverted, what proofs do I have of the existance of natural law? what strenght have the evidence of apple falling from threes, if I long understood that it is not possible for apples falling from threes? What strenght has any of the evidence that contradicts our own previously understood reality of the world? The same argument of Hume could be used by the Faithful to reject his arguments, what's the strenght of the evidence that countradicts what I say? If I lack any humilty, then none. A law court started with the pretence of discarding any evidence and condemning to death a suspected murderer, would lack any intellectual integrity, would be called a fraud, and a grave injustice. Also, to Discredit the testimonies of those who happen to see miracles, would be like condemning their level of understanding of natural law, they too knew that men do not walk on water, and yet they saw and proclamed the miracle for that very reason. To have a very large number of testimonies, then, is to be somewhat more trusted than to believe that ones conception of natural law is astonishingly better than those who saw the miracles. For an analogy, you could condemn 100 testimonies for a murder by saying that murder is against the law, and then that people respect the law, and as such any example of it not happening is not to be trusted. this surely is a great deception. But according to Hume its a righteous position. Then how come those people tell this? is it more probable, for a large number of people proclaming falsehood, or yourself deciding to attach to your own limited understanding of the world? In the End Hume proclames a circular logic: the law of nature cannot be broken because it can not be broken, deny this truth, and you're going against the law of nature, and as such are not to be taken seriously. In context, Hume's claim is a great affront to the grand intellectual discipline of the Middle ages, when your ponderings had to be plausibly backed, or you were getting excommunicated (see Galileo failing to back his thesis and getting an excommunication as a result).
@febri patar based comment 👌🏻
This would of course be contingent on the fact that we have a complete understanding of natural law, which we most certainly do not.
The court of law is a fine analogy, but take it one step further: there are standards of proof to consider! If the defendant is on trial for murder, there's a higher standard to reach ("beyond a reasonable doubt") compared to if they were being sued ("preponderance of the evidence") - usually because the consequences of a guilty verdict are so much more serious. Moreover, the judge has guidelines for what types of evidence are admissible to the court. "A psychic consulted with the spirit of the dead wife and the spirit said the husband is the murderer" is consistent with the hypothesis that the husband is in fact the murderer, but it doesn't count as evidence.
So the big questions are: what kind of a thing is a miracle; what types of evidence are actually admissible to the court of Judge Bayes for the prosecution to use ("I charge you with being a miracle!"); what standard does all the evidence and argument need to reach to bring a "guilty" verdict?
IIRC Hume's claim is that miracles are of a problematic kind, whereby the only admissible evidence would be some other miracle. Objecting "well, the probability goes up when you factor in the evidence!" seems like it's missing the point, although I suppose you could just say that Hume didn't justify his screening out of non-miracle evidence for miracles.
It's weird because it's not like these apologists don't understand the concept you've explained and yet they cling to these superstitions with so much fervor.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
~ Upton Sinclair
"I don't agree with this person therefore they're only in it for money"
- Late
@@rayzas4885 Craig is an incredibly smart man so when he doesn't seem to understand some pretty simple concepts, he's either self deluded or disingenuous.
@@late8641 that Sinclair quote can perfectly be applied to William Lane Craig as well as to any atheist apologist.
@@rayzas4885 it's a double edged sword. That quote can be applied to many individuals Late looks up to also.
@@late8641 “Everyone who disagrees with me is either stupid or ill intentioned.”
All Dr. Craig did was prove that doesn't have a firm grasp on either Hume's argument or on probability theory.
David hume's argument is validity. And i accepted his argument.
Cope.
This analogy doesn't apply to miracles, a man killing his wife makes far more sense than Jesus' resurrection.
What makes the difference? Your prior assumption that miracles can never happen?
@@VBrinkV. The difference is that it is still reasonable to forecast that a man could kill his wife without knowing the facts.
It's not nearly as reasonable to think something which is logically impossible happened.
And that's a misrepresentation of Hume's argument anyway, even when taking into account the evidence, Hume would still conclude it is more likely that a miracle wasn't performed, in cases such as whether Jesus was resurrected or not.
Craig did not destroy Hume's argument...there was nothing to destroy. Hume's essay expressed sentiment and obvious circular reasoning that used the assumption that all reports of miracles were false to calculate the prior probability of a miracle as so low that he could conclude that all reports of it were false and then triumphantly boasted that this would overcome any evidence to the contrary. The same argument could be made with equal validity against the existence of trees. Every sighting of a tree is false since we never see trees, making trees so unlikely that if someone merely thinks they saw and interacted with a tree they must be mistaken. Plus its mostly those unreliable people from the country that believe in trees and come up with wild stories about forests and trees being used to make wood, etc etc, us sophisticated kind of learned folk don't believe it...etc etc.
Yep! That pretty much sums up Hume’s weak attempt at disproving miracles.
I don't see how wlc destroyed it.
He didn’t. But it feels good to some to think he did.
@@MrAndyStenz unfortunately, wlc avoided the actual point of the argument, but still gets his aim kind of right: if you just deny any evidence against you, you're not really intellectually honest, and possibly lack in humilty. A more redefined argument could be: "100 people testify for the murder of a person, but their testimony can not count, as murder is against the law, and people respect the law; as such, my opinion and preconception of the world is more true than the same conception of the world by those who claim the murder happened. In particular, I cannot fathom at thinking that those who knew that men do not walk on water could be veritable at proclaiming a miracle for that very reason; you may think I'm absurd for thinking this, but you are absurd for proclaming the laws of nature can be broken by some being outside of them!"
@@marcoconsorti2663 My retort was a short snipe at the fact that, as Cameron has stated, he has to make click-bait style titles for his videos in order to play the youtube game. My brain is too foggy this am to respond with anything intellectually interesting, but I did want to make note of your thoughtful response (my silly snipe deserved far less). I'm not normally just sniping like this either, so do accept my apologies for not engaging in such a state.
@@marcoconsorti2663 I don't think it is fair to call Hume's resistance towards accepting miracle claims as a prejudice. It is, instead, a belief supported by pretty much every evidence a person has ever had on a given topic, and the "prior" carries that weight too. When WLN calls it a prior, he is overlooking that the prior itself is based on overwhelming evidence. In fact, I also don't think the analogy Craig presented is fair. Even though the probability of a husband killing his wife is low, the prior could not be that that could never happen. So, the odds against the husband aren't nearly as high as against a miracle. Therefore, the evidence that we need in order to be convinced that he did it also don't need to be as compelling.
Unlike what WLN seems to be saying, Hume never denied that if we had enough evidence that rising from the dead is possible, we should conclude it is: he just argued that it is impossible that enough evidence could be gathered on a given miracle to "testify against" a lifetime of evidence against its possibility . So, he belived that other hypotheses (mass delusion, dishonesty, historical falsification, etc) are far more likely to be true. In truth, it does seem very odd to me that Craig considers that a handful of books written centuries ago by non-eye-witnesses claiming that there were a lot of actual eye-witnesses is enough evidence to consider a man could have risen from the dead. I don't mean to disrespect any person's beliefs, but I think it does require a lot of faith to believe it.
@@tuliobouzas
Well, it's just a fallacy, at that point evidence would just be proven on good sense. It excludes the Cardinal point in scientific examination which is that at one point you have to trust some authority of any kind. In the same way not everyone can testify a Miracle, not everyone can go on the Galapagos to contemplate the birds of Darwin. Even if multiple scientists attest the same thing, it's still a truth by Authority. In the end, you cannot untrust whatever you want, just because a Miracle is something you cannot repeat, doesn't mean it is false. In the same vein, there are other astral happenings that take many centuries to reappear. There are many things that are not repeatable, such that judgement by authority is often necessary.
A more numerous sample size is a more probable authority truly, such that more testimonies to a given study are more credible than a single one. In the same way, more testimonies on the same phenomenon but in different studies are usually taken as truthful. In the case of the Catholic Church, it takes her much work to distinguish between truth and fraud, many miracles are attested by many people, from all the social classes from all over the world. Reason and good sense would say against denying to a global sized testimony, atleast not without giving it a try at that. For example the Miracle at Fatima is one of the most interesting and popular, you surely know it as one of the most famous miracles in the world, rightly for its ample testimony size.
The take to obstinate against testimony is one of arrogance and pride. Pretty present in the time and place of Hume, where tolerance was for all but not for the Atheists nor for Catholics. A prideful stance, which delineates what is said before "whenever I will see it, then I will know it as true".
This truly can't be the foundation of any knowledge, from law to science, from filosophy to religion. People need to trust eachother, or everything collapses on itself. Either knowledge would stop existing, or it would stop giving any benefits whatsoever.
All extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence..to deny this is to conflate two categories of knowledge..so Craig is wrong again!
Sceptical Scientist not true
I wish WLC would prove this nonsense actually can happen by bringing back the wonderful Christopher Hitchens, who could then continue to wipe his (WLC) behind with the absurdity of his weak arguments.
@Stefan Urban Or...we have 4 eyewitness testimony accounts, well preserved. These testimonies are supported by all contemporary evidence we have. And the story is the best by far in explaining the basic facts that most scholars on the matter agree with. Some people are sceptical of this not based on any evidence but on their assumption that it couldn´t happen.
@Jimmy The Pink I thought the sarcasm was pretty obvious. Don't forget to look in the mirror and say what a clever boy I am. 😂
@@thomasfryxelius5526 there's that ridiculous statement again "most scholars agree".
Please feel free to enlighten the world on what this contemporary evidence is that supports the 4 eyewitness accounts. Any new evidence is always welcome.
What William Lane Craig is arguing here is to show the consequences of applying Hume's reasoning to issues of the world that matter. If we accept Hume's line of reasoning, then the suspect is subject to a bill of attainder by analogy. In this, Lane is correct.
Actually, the prior probability that the husband's the one who's guilty is pretty high, given that his wife was murdered.
"Which makes the evidence more probable? The Resurrection Hypothesis or the Denial of Resurrection Hypothesis"
This sounds backwards. You don't use the hypothesis to make the evidence more probable. You use the evidence to determine which hypothesis is more probable.
William lane Craig: ignorant or willful BS?
Thrawnmulus willfully bullshitting
@@Thrawnmulus Classic atheist cope.
What? Yea. Hume was right. Tell a judge that some supernatural force is to blame and you will be laughed out of court.
Philosophy majors in my philosophy group who get first-class marks on their exams would laugh at the comments posed (I read about 20 or so comments so I can't speak for all the comments) by the condescending 'atheists' in response to this video (and probably not just laugh at the atheist comments). I can tell you that many intellectual philosophers respect Craig. One friend I have at Birkbeck College, London says that Craig is an intelligent philosopher.
Wow if your friend says so, then Craig must in fact be smart, and what he says must be true. And the atheists' comments here must be really dumb, if real atheists with high marks would laugh at them (according to you, a theist).
Sorry about the sarcasm, but something about your comment just rubbed me the wrong way. If you want to have a proper discussion, I'm here for it!
Kind regards,
An 'atheist'
That's great, could you please share their arguments, criticisms or responses? Otherwise this risks veering into an appeal to an anonymous authority or simply an ad-hominem .
I kinda want to see where this goes
I suspect most philosophy majors wouldn't find only the comments posted by atheists amusing. Craig I obviously intelligent. As are many who disagree with him.
@@roys1057 1) "Wow if your friend says so, then Craig must in fact be smart, and what he says must be true. And the atheists' comments here must be really dumb...." If you are trying to say that I was reasoning this way & you believed I was reasoning this way, then your belief was false because I wasn't, in fact, reasoning this way. The consequent by no means follows from the antecedent. That is to say, what comes after the word 'then' is not logically implied (material implication I believe) by the 'if' clause in the conditional statement. We can see the falsity of this implication by showing that it is certainly possible for my friend to say this and that Craig, in fact, be not smart, and what he says false. And the atheists' comments here not be dumb. I was rather (if I remember correctly) trying to reason this way: no one should talk condescendingly to other people because they hold different beliefs (even if you think their beliefs are silly); a fortiori, condescendingly on a subject that one does not seem to know a decent amount about. It seems to me, for the moment, that it is fine to talk on a subject that you don't know a lot about, but to do it in a nonvirtuous way seems inappropriate. I have to submit my comment here because I can't see the rest of your comment, but I will try and reply to the rest of your (and others) comment after I submit this comment.
Hume is all over the place. Hume argues that induction has no reasonable basis in epistemology, then he contravenes this by using induction to formulate a uniformity in nature. Hume asserts that the dullest phantasm is more faithful to reality than any conception, thereby in theory impoverishing our cognitive capacities to the point of absolute skepticism. For this reason, it is unfaithful to his own premises to take a position for or against miracles. With regard to miracles, Hume succumbs to an idealism that answers questions about the world before looking at it. Of itself, mathematics says nothing about the world. To deduce historical claims from a set of premises MUST beg the question.
Nope. Horrible analogy. Crimes happen all the time. Ascension only happens if you are Romulus, Mohammed, or…. That one guy…. What’s his name? We haven’t seen documentation of resurrection, and so Bronze Age claims by third parties to such are pretty far fetched and easy to dismiss. WLC ignores here the importance of weighing the improbability of an incredible claim such as a miracle by using an analogy of a mundane event like murder. Just brainless and misses Hume’s point entirely. “What is the probability once you bring in the evidence?” Zero, Bill.
Stop with these sensationalized headlines that make people think philosophy is about destroying the dumb people with incorrect views. This title caricatures philosophy (even if Hume’s argument is flawed)
Some ideas are dumb and deserve to be destroyed. Hume's question-begging fallacy is one of them
His argument is really clear and conscise and definietely helps me understand things he's said in the past but it's really difficult to work out exactly how much weight to give the ressurection, overall. Hume thought that a miracle was the least probable thing to have happened, I'm not sure any evidence would've changed his mind (although I understand Craig doesn't think it has a low probabliltiy on background evidence, k).
You'd also have to consider potential evidence against the resurrection as well, e.g. did Jesus predict the end of the world during the apostle's life time, did the earliest followers really believe He was God? etc.
I first heard Hume's argument against miracles on Inspiring Philosophy. I thought it was bad the first instant I heard it.
@@charlesrankin1190 I can only vaugely remember IP's video but I remember I didn't like it. Hume argued specifically that *_the testimony_* of someone claiming to have experienced a miracle can never be justifiably believed because it is contrary to the laws of nature and no one's testimony, no mater how reliable they are would ever require a violation of the laws of nature to be decided inaccurate.
J.L. Mackie has a really good description of the argument in the 2nd chapter of _The Miracle of Theism._ Hume's argument, as I understand it is specifically tied to the justifiability of one's beleifs and the testimony on which it is based. It wasn't an argument that miracles can't happen or that they violate natural law so they must be wrong (or something like that).
That's a key point: when it comes to testimony, considering that miracles are supposed to be rare and special events (I expect WLC and Cameron to agree that resurrections are very rare and special, even singular, events, even if the capital-R Resurrection definitely happened), yet people misinterpreting, confabulating, dreaming, lying, and so on are so common, miracle testimony can't overcome the evidence against.
@@StephenMeansMe yes, I agree resurrection is obviously very rare (if it happens at all), as I understand Craig thinks that Hume should have included "God exists" in the background evidence as well. He accepts that on natural laws alone, the resurrection is very imporbable but he argues conditional on God's existence it's not improbable.
Andrew Wells
In his Defenders podcasts Dr Craig discusses things of that sort (coincidentally I’m actually at the part where he talks about the fact that Jesus predicted the world to end). So you make a good point that those things cannot be ignored, but Craig has in fact talked about those things in his own work.
Humean skepticism is special pleading.
Making a sentence is special pleading...
@@hansdemos6510 He doesn't apply his skepticism consistently.
@@glurp1 I'm not sure if that's true. I'm also not sure it should be called "special pleading" if it were true. It seems to me that if you use "special pleading" in the way you seem to be using it, it becomes meaningless, as you could call anything you disagree with "special pleading". Hence my comment...
Presumably, he had some sort of probability test for events outside of his experience. He didn't experience what he interpreted to be supernatural events up to the point that he formulated his theory. Then, he required so much stronger evidence for the supernatural than other unusual experiences outside of his own personal experience. The difference in proof required is unnecessarily high. That is the special pleading.
Many people have experienced the supernatural in such obvious ways that it would take a lot of mental gymnastics to provide purely naturalistic explanations. Hume should have remained open to this possibility, but his burden of proof for this one category was so high that his mind was practically made up about any evidence in advance.
I'm not saying we should accept all supernatural claims without evidence, but the evidence required shouldn't be as impossibly high as Hume's.
@@glurp1 You said: "Many people have experienced the supernatural in such obvious ways that it would take a lot of mental gymnastics to provide purely naturalistic explanations." Could you please give an example? I don't think I can understand this sentence. If the experience was so "obvious", it should not be difficult to at least make a plausible case that it really happened, so no "mental gymnastics" should be needed at all.
I get the feeling that you are conflating "events we do not (yet) understand" with "supernatural events". Could you indicate how you would distinguish between the two?
He seems to be saying not that Hume’s argument is wrong but that his calculation is. Craig just thinks that Lazarus actually being raised from the dead is more likely than it being made up
It's OK to believe in miracles, as long as you're OK believing in something that (1) there's no scientific evidence for, (2) has no conceivable scientific mechanism, (3) has only anecdotal "evidence", (4) relies on a causal agent that there is no scientific evidence of, (5) violates the principle of historical analogy, (6) relies on a causal agent that is said to be capable of contradicting the laws of nature, (7) relies on the alleged existence of a "disembodied mind" which is something that contradicts all scientific understanding, (8) the vast majority of the time prior probability shows it is necessarily a false claim (because religions contradict), (9) anecdotal evidence for which has been (a) refuted as frauds countless times (countless miracle claims are proven frauds) and (b) never verified, (10) people have a strong incentive to believe in contrary to evidence against it, (11) is not merely unlike anything you've ever seen before in your entire life but actively contradictory to it, (12) nobody can agree on how to establish good standards of evidence for, (13) not even a majority of the human population can agree on a single instance of a genuine case, (14) people have a strong incentive to invent stories about (there is often much to be gained for those claiming miracles occurred to them), (15) false stories for which are universal to virtually all cultures (obviously humans have a tendency to invent false miracles - it's just a fact), (16) would imply that God thinks it's OK to intervene in reality in only obscure ways that are so rare that gainsaying them is easier than believing in them, (18) *anybody* has to admit you would be rationally justified in at least questioning as a trick if you saw it yourself, (19) implies that God uses literally some of the craziest stuff you could imagine when he intervenes in the world to prove his existence to someone (like causing donkeys to talk or commandeering a bear to murder children for making fun of a man's baldness), but isn't willing to ever come down and have a simple conversation with someone and unambiguously identify himself, (20) belief in specific claims for which is *highly* predictable based on factors like the family you happened to be born into and the stories you were taught before you developed critical thinking, (21) implies that God thinks it's important to not do too many of for totally unclear reasons or because it would be too gross a display of power or because it would violate "free will of belief" by showing himself in that way, despite the fact that there are supposed creatures that literally/basically have seen God face to face and still reject him, (22) still doesn't prove God because you couldn't distinguish a miracle claim from an excellent trickster or an advanced lifeform, (23) are not necessary for people to believe in God but claims for which cause extreme confusion (arguably contradicting 1 Corinthians 14:33), and (24) an infinitely intelligent being who loves you more than himself should not have to rely on freak-show-like circus displays to get you to heed what he says and instead, obviously, should be able to convince 99.99% of people to listen to him merely by virtue of a simple conversation with him. The case against miracle claims is so overwhelmingly strong that a courtroom analogy is absurd. You believe in miracles based on the will to believe, which has no place in a courtroom.
Thank you for letting me believe in miracles! I´m ok believing in something that 1) there is no scientific evidence for (or, in other words, is miraculous) but that we have ample eyewitness accounts of. 2) It doesn´t have a scientific mechanism, or, in other words, is a miracle. 3) Has mostly anecdotal evidence (or eyewitness accounts that is good enough for history, court cases, social studies etc.) and backed up in some cases by medical journals and other physical evidence.
5) Violates the principle of historical analogy, since a unique event cannot possibly be true right?
6) relies on a causal agent capable of contradicting the laws of nature, or in other words, perform a miracle.
7) a disembodied mind is not contradicted by science, how could it be? "When I studied material things I couldn´t find a non-material component with my equipment that measures...material things..."
8) religions contradict each other and therefore...noone is right? But atheist contradict us too, so they can´t be right either by the same logic.
9) Since there are proven frauds ... there cannot be the real deal? Never verified? Many miracles are verified, like the resurrection, by multiple eyewitnesses.
10) I am not aware of any evidence against miracles in general. There is some evidence against some claims and I tend not to trust those claims.
Ok, 10 points in, still believing in miracles.
@@thomasfryxelius5526 Great! Happy to hear it. But how do you deal with the fact that most miracle claims are false? How do you know which ones to believe in? Also, a disembodied mind is indeed contradicted by science. All current scientific models of mind show that matter in brain generates mind. A disembodied mind is a theory that scientific evidence goes against. If there is evidence for one, it would become scientific.
@RetroMan I will just ignore the bad terminology because your meaning is clear. I hope you understand what empirical evidence is because that will save a lot of time. If we have to discuss it that's fine too.
OK so empirical evidence for evolution. One is the nested hierarchy (NH) of traits in all life forms we see on Earth. The fact that lifeforms contain NHs of traits - a deviation from which we have no counterexamples - is a prediction of an evolutionary theory because a NH of traits is the mathematically necessary outcome of a branching process. So, the existence of a NH of traits in all lifeforms on Earth that has no exceptions shows we have a common ancestor, which implies evolution. That's a good one to talk about. It's empirical, predictable, and falsifiable. This is actually my favorite piece of evidence for the theory.
I realize this term NH is technical and we can discuss it if you like.
The only thing Wlc destroys is my respect for this channel
cope harder
@@RadicOmega It has nothing to do with "cope-ing" it's just a horrible response from Craig. I highly suggest you ask him what a murder of a wife by the husband or any mathematics have to do with suspension of the natural law?
Jesus being raised by supernatural means IS a violation of natural law
A man being accused of murdering his wife has nothing to do with the laws of nature.
It's a horrible response by Craig...and no theist has offered an rebuttal. Hume's argument still stands... especially with more examples coming in. Thunders used to be miracles...a weapon of God to punish the sinners...until Benjamin Franklin and the lighting rod. Until Faraday and Others.
I can name you hundreds of examples of supernatural claims that are better explained by naturalistic explanations.
Because so long a natural explanation exists...the supernatural miraculous explanation should be disregarded.
Methodological naturalism or even empiricism have debunked hundreds of thousands miracles.
@@Raydensheraj A miracle is, by definition, a violation of natural law. Put another way, anything that can be explained by natural law simply cannot be called a miracle. If your argument is "miracles fail because they suspend natural law," you've only begged the question (a logical fallacy) and have "proven" nothing...
@@Raydensheraj There used to be sentiments against the idea of meteorites falling from the sky down to earth among scientists. It was claimed to be superstitious and miraculous. Hume's argument makes it impossible to accept meteorites (in the past)
You should seriously abandon the habit of putting assertive titles to invoke some sense of victory for yourself. That's a cheap tactic.
I mean literally every atheist youtuber does it. But really who cares. If the title is enough to change your opinion about whats being said thats on you.
Again a great argument from our atheist friends. The video has an assertive title. Boo hoo.
@@jacobleaver2450 True BUT atheist youtubers are actually destroying theistic weak arguments, happens all the time. WLC just muttered a bunch of nonsense that completely misses the point.
Agree...anytime someone uses all-or-nothing terms like ultimate, prove, never, all, destroys, I'm suspect.
Except Hume's argument IS fallacious, which is why it's no longer used by serious academics.
This really is nonsense. Hume would simply ask for the evidence; and if Dr Craig couldn’t provide any, Hume would ask why he should believe in the event. This is pre- High School thinking: Hume would tear this argument apart.
No he would not. Hume did not even address the evidence for miracles. He just assumes his conclusion before he even proves it.
But would you recalculate the probability of it being the husband based on the fingerprint of the stars?
The example given is irrelevant and misleading. Hume considered all the 'evidence'.
Sure, but with unwarranted bias.
Have you read On Miracles?
Hume did not consider all the evidence. What an absurd claim.
Craig makes this WAY too complicated, and it doesn’t have to be. Let me try using reductio ad absurdum.
Hume basically thinks the repetition of nature outweighs the chance of a miracle, and miracles should be dismissed based on this probability quotient. The problem with that is, by that same criteria you’d have to dismiss all non-miraculous unique events (first time occurrences or even low probability occurrences.. because they haven’t happened before and thus places them in the same category as miracles.. their chance of happening is outweighed by all things that have repeatedly happened).
The kicker is, nature itself is repetitive, but in order for something to be repetitive it has to happen at least twice.. and for something to happen at least twice, it has to happen at least once.. but an event that happens once is a one time unique event, and by Humes standards would have to be dismissed.. meaning nature itself is rejected by this non-miraculous view which requires nature for its very grounding.
Humes whole thing is self contradictory once tested.
thats all well and good but it doesnt address the other part of the argument that testimony is not sufficient evidence for extraordinary claims and id argue that thats a perfectly reasonable argument hume is essentially arguing that anything that cant be proven scientifically shouldnt be accepted and testimony is simply not enough for the scientific method some people might argue that science isnt the only discipline and that we need other ways to learn about our world but the thing is all of the other disciplines like history are rooted in science sure history operates in a completely different manner but it can only establish things that have already been established by science
Sort of a weird analogy. If a wife is murdered the husband will always, in every single case, be the number one suspect prior to a detailed examination of the evidence. Somewhere between one third to one half of all women who are murdered are murdered by their husbands. If a wife is murdered, no one anywhere would be the least bit surprised that the husband did it.
So to make this analogous to the resurrection, one would need to assume that somewhere between one third and one half of people who die are resurrected and come back to life. And that resurrection is so common that most people would naturally consider it the most likely scenario.
In addition to the flaws identified below (re: the courtroom/trial analogy), there's another, rather glaring flaw to Dr. Craig's argument: he omits what is often considered a crucial component of any prosecution's case: motive. In the trial of a husband, it would - all things being equal - be quite difficult to convict without establishing a reasonable motive. Given our knowledge of the social/economic/political power that has been wielded by religious institutions throughout recorded history, it is not difficult to see that there exists a motive (of incalculable weight ) for a small group to fabricate testimony in order to convince others (deceive others, rather) towards the veracity of the Gospel.
From this, we are not only able to cast doubt towards any such religious claims, but even able to construct a rather plausible alternate explanation for the creation and perpetuation of such untruths.
If I were a believer - as opposed to an agnostic - I'd at least have the dignity to restrict my proselytizing to it's proper realm: FAITH. This has become a synonym for "religion" for good reason, namely, it is a BELIEF that can neither be convincingly argued as being "justified" nor "true." (Justification, truth, and belief - the three in concert -have long been considered the most adequate working definition for "knowledge" in epistemological study)
The title of this video is misleading. He didn't destroy Hume's argument, all I am hearing is that Hume didn't consider MAGIC!!!
All you’re doing is justifying what early testimony about Christ confirmed. Call it whatever makes you happy. Miracles happen
Hear, hear. Watching this, I had thought this was a joke/troll channel until I got to the comment section. These cats really think that was a counter to Hume? This was comical.
@@J5L5M6 Craig is not seeking to attempt to prove that miracles happen. Crag is merely pointing out a flaw in Hume’s reasoning.
A better analogy would be what is the chance that an interdimensional unicorn killed his wife.
Well if there is an infinite number of universes in a multi-verse where each one has a tiny albeit finite chance to produce life (such as presumed by many Atheists in order to avoid the Fine Tuning of the universe being due by design) we should expect that there are bound to be an infinite number of other universes that produced life albeit a tiny portion of the ones that did not--still with an infinite number of dice rolls, the conditions for life must have come up an infinite number of times even if the roll required was very rare. Among these rare roles of the life bearing universes must be an infinite subset of ones with horse like animals. A further infinite subset has an infinite number of horse like animals with unicorn like horns. A still smaller infinite subset being pink. Thus the Atheist avoiding Fine Tuning is committed to the existence of pink unicorns in other universes, which we might as well call different dimensions, or interdimensional unicorns. Of course as far as we know there is no way to interact with these other universes no matter what advances our science makes to reach one with unicorns, or that the unicorn's science advances to reach ours. If such interaction is not possible, then any such pink unicorns will remain completely invisible to us...and the Atheist has inadvertently committed himself to believing in the actual existence of an infinite number of invisible pink unicorns from other dimensions (or universes or whatever you want to call them). However if there is a finite chance that they can interfere with another universe, then we have to allow for the possibility of the unicorn killing the guys wife I suppose, albeit it seems remote. If we are not an Atheist, then we need not be so silly though.
Spare me the Carl Sagan quote, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Sagan, like Hume, was unfaithful to his own principle. For Sagan, one rational signal at SETI would be sufficient to infer extraterrestrial intelligent life, yet all the intelligent design in the world was unsatisfactory to him for inferring an Intelligent designer of the universe. I suppose what is hard for the skeptics is the consequences of the reasoning, not the reasoning itself. Christ's resurrection certainly has consequences for humanity as a whole.
It's not true that Hume only considers the prior probability. Half of his essay is about how the evidence from testimony is never sufficient to overcome the prior probability.
Hume's argument is circular and demolished in literature. Miracles don't happen, therefore they don't happen.
Les dang never thought of it that way but you a genius
I’m not being sarcastic
@@gabepearson4732 You should of been because thats as far away from genius as you can get.
@@les2997 Hume didn't presuppose that there are no miracles. He pointed out that the belief in miracles likely can't be rationally supported on empirical grounds, because we make sense of what we perceive by preferring the familiar to the bizarre until that epistemic strategy of methodological naturalism fails, when there's simply no alternative but to accept the only explanation left, that a miracle occurred. Hume's point was that we've been explaining what we perceive in the world for a long time, for tens of thousands of years, so we've got a great many naturalistic explanations to try out on bizarre claims, before leaping to the supernatural. To wit, we know how religions tend to form from cults, how gossip and misunderstandings snowball into massive confusions, how we prefer comforting delusions to unpleasant truths, how political considerations overtake spiritual ones, and so on. We know that from history, anthropology, psychology and sociology. All of that has to be knocked down before the outlandish Christian creed has to be accepted as the only remaining explanation. That was Hume's point about miracle claims.
I honestly do not understand what the Christian fuss is. Why would it matter if god exists and does miracles? How is that supposed to help those billions of people in history (including millions of Christians) who have tried to communicate with him, noticed no response, and decided that the rational person puts a limit on the number of times they knock at a closed door before it becomes safe to conclude that nobody is home?
Okay but what is the evidence of a resurrection? That there were witnesses who saw the event? But the cornerstone of Hume's argument is that, "“It will be sufficient to observe that our assurance in any argument of this kind is derived from no other principle than our observation of the veracity of human testimony and of the usual conformity of facts to the reports of witnesses.” -Section X, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Meaning that even though there are however many testimonies of a Resurrection there are countless billions of testimonies from people who have never seen such an event happen before. Not to say that Hume is right about miracles per-say but if you are going to use the fact of human testimony as evidence in your argument Hume has already talked endlessly about the topic and defended it pretty well. Just to play devil's advocate.
The event in question is not "a resurrection" but "the resurrection". I.e. a specific event in history, not a general phenomenon. So therefore the countless witness accounts of people who HAVEN'T seen a resurrection aren't relevant for the Bayesian inference.
Dr. Craig Keener does a much better job than Dr. Craig. He's not taken seriously in Biblical Scholar circles any longer.
Lol so Craig's "EVIDENCE" is in reality a percieved gap in scientific knowledge into which he squeezes "MAGIC" as the explanation 🤣 😅 😄 😂 😆
Sniff, sniff... I think I smell a strawman.
@@ir0nic303 lol only if it straw smells like Christian BS dear. 🤭
Not a big fan of the new titles 👀
RUclips forces creators to use click-bate-blame them.
@@CapturingChristianity I prefer your longer, more honest explanation.
@@CapturingChristianity How does it force you?
@@suntzu7727 More clicks equal more money and Cameron has a family to support.
@@CapturingChristianity How far would you be happily "forced" to go? At what point would you start feeling uncomfortable? The furthest you could go would be an outright lie. How far down that road do you think this video title is?
RESPONSE TO LANE CRAIG: Murders occur all the time and there are always culprits, it remains to be seen who the killers are (or the killer). In this case, evidence favorable to the hypothesis has considerable weight. On the other hand, the resurrection phenomenon is a singular, extraordinary and non-replicable event. So it needs a lot of favorable evidence so that we can make an inductive leap.
"EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE"
I just used a script to generate a uuid4 of 908ebbbc-15d4-4ab9-926e-125d4c4fdf70. The likelihood for this ever happening again is very low, and such values are routinely considered universally unique. Being that the prior probability is fantastically low, does this mean I need to present to you extraordinary evidence that I got that particular value?
@@reasonforge9997 "I just used a script to generate a uuid4 of 908ebbbc-15d4-4ab9-926e-125d4c4fdf70..."
This is an interesting statement, but it is not extraordinary (in the sense I consider here). We invented hash function, encryption etc, we know perfectly how it works. How does resurrection work? How many resurrections have you seen?
P.S - You are unique. It is unlikely that another one like you will be generated in the world by the natural process, but there are billions of people in the world generated by the same process as you. Therefore, I am almost sure that I am answering a person. I think it is unlikely, at this moment, that I am answering an Artificial Intelligence. LOL
@@visaoholistica205 I agree with you that it is not an extraordinary claim. Seems rareness or even uniqueness of a particular result can not make a claim extraordinary. The reason we judge it as ordinary is because we have a working idea of how computers and/or hashing works. We apply that model and find the result normal. If one starts with a model of how things work that precludes acts of God, they will find Miracles extraordinary. If they start with a model that includes God being inclined to sometimes work certain Miracles, then Miracles that are consistent with the model are not as extraordinary. As such, one can not determine which model is correct by the kind of Bayesian probability that Hume employed. In order to determine how "extraordinary" a Miracle is, and thus what prior probability to assign it, they must already have decided what metaphysical model of reality is right.
Bart Ehrman's anti-miracle stance is a preconception, not a conclusion from the facts. He just assumes miracles are never the best explanation for any given set of evidence (as he has stated himself). So his disbelief in the resurrection is not an evidential claim, it's an assumed conclusion.
Hume always win. It was another poor attempt by Craig to try an explain away Hume, and use analogy of actual facts (i.e., bloodstains, found murder weapon) as being equal to a supernatural event that defies the laws of physics. Hume's position does not really on one set of probabilities. Rather, it relies upon all inputs and weighs them to arrive at a conclusion. The probability argument was already anticipated by Hume who clearly and very directly says to weigh the evidence. Craig tries and tries, but he cannot accept that at the end of the day, Hume got it right.
I just found out Dr. Craig is 70 years old. Hate to see great people get old and deteriorate. God bless him
nice ad hominem. Can't address the argument.
@@Convexhull210 It wasn't an ad hominem. I like Dr. Craig. I was just genuinely commenting on the fact that his age is becoming apparent
@@Cry4Tanelorn my apologies. I misread.
Evidence requires no faith to believe in it. And without faith you cannot please God.
God Cameron's titles are pure cancer
why? i think it was aptly titled.
I guess I don't see how Dr. Craig's argument addresses Hume's argument. In order for the other probabilities to "outweigh" the prior probability of a miracle, you need to know what the prior probability of a miracle is. And we don't.
You might be interested in checking out my podcast episodes with Dr. Calum Miller--we talk about the prior probability of the Resurrection: soundcloud.com/capturingchristianity/cc018-the-prior-probability-of-the-resurrection-with-dr-calum-miller-part-1
@@CapturingChristianity I'll give it a listen: thanks!
God Bless You all. All Glory to God. Repent and live for God!! Romans 10:9 “if you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God rose Him from the dead you will be saved.”
WHAT!? This is absolute nonsense!
While I find the refutation valid I still have problems with the assumption that those extra factors the prove the resurrection to be completely valid where it is still being debated.Take for example the claim of 500 people witnesses the miracle happening while at face value it makes the claim more valid, it and other 'evidences' are still being disputed upon
Wow... Cameron thank you so much this gives me so much confidence and has helped me rational lay out my beliefs
@@alexrogers777 probably because he believes on miracles, and Hume defies the idea that miracles can happen.
@@alexrogers777 perhaps he thinks it's rational in the same way that believing in other minds is rational.
@@alexrogers777 how does Hume defy the idea that miracles can happen?
Well, even if the prior probability is virtually zero, what evidence do you bring to the table as supporting a high or even medium probability for the resurrection or any other miracle, Dr. Craig? He is setting a very low bar here. Sorry, but he didn't "DESTROY" anything in that clip.
Craig isn’t a genuine philosopher, humbly following reason wherever it leads. For him, faith plays a “magisterial” role to reason’s “ministerial” role. After he hitched his first rate intellect to the dray-cart of Christianity by means of his “inner witness of the Holy Spirit”, it was a simple matter of finding reasons to believe-sort of like a lawyer arguing a case. Bias much?
As well as the analogy works in this case, the conclusion still seems unwarranted.
How did we conclude that an unnatural or supernatural explanation was likely or even possible? Yes you can technically say there is a chance of it being possible but that doesn't mean asserting it makes it the most likely.
Hey Samuel, is your starting position the assumption that a supernatural cause is not possible? I am just trying to get clarity for your concern here. I appreciate it!
@@wheretruthleads I'd say that it hasn't been conclusively demonstrated. Again that doesn't mean it's not possible, it's just not in the conversation until it is shown to be possible.
@@samuelbulow5291 That seems circular. Maybe I'm missing something.
I think the point of disagreement you will find the most with your concern is that something being possible is typically the default position when considering truth. To claim a position is impossible would come with a burden of proof.
I personally find there to be a multitude of evidence that points to supernatural causes yet I have never seen evidence that points to supernatural causes being impossible.
Keep in mind, I realise you may only be considering this scientifically. The only issue with that is that Science "assumes" methodological naturalism. It prohibits supernatural explanations from even being included in the pool of live explanatory options.
Dr. Sean Carroll on the topic of supernatural causes: "such causes are not contemplated in a physical theory and so are neither affirmed nor denied.
This is a question about truth that is can't be bound to the limits of science without warrent so we must be willing to step back and look at all the possible conclusions and not just those that are limited to scientific understanding.
Those are my thoughts, I am curious to know what do you think about what I have stated when considering your concern?
@@wheretruthleads as far as i understood your take, you more or less correctly stated my issue. But in the quest for truth, having solutions you can't directly verify are unworthy of discussion, in my opinion.
I'll try to give an analogy of my own. Let's say a man is found dead in his home with his head cut off. At a base look at the situation, almost anything could answer the truth of why/how he died. You could likely conclude that his death was likely a murder, but that isn't certain yet.
Let's now say further investigation shows that his head was removed with an axe in from a storage closet. His wife and son were home at the time but they claim to have had no contact with him that day.
Now a neighbor down the street claims it might've been the spirit of his dead sister because the man had gotten into an accident with her one night after a lot of drinking. In this person's mind, this seems reasonably. But in the search for truth, such claims with little to support them are disregarded. A claim has little place in an investigation of truth if the claim cannot be shown to be possible.
Since miracles are without solid evidence I'll go with Hume
This is pretty much what it boils down to.
@J w It's all anecdotal, doesn't amount to a hill of beans and wouldn't stand up in court. It's simply not sufficient.
@J w that is an opinion. Sufficiency from Dr. Craig's point of view isn't necessarily scientific sufficiency. There are arguments, but the question is are they good enough
@J w not to the scientific world that truly values evidence.
@J w The moment an anecdotal piece of evidence claiming the supernatural is used in court, it's thrown out. That tells you all you need to know.
The whole point of Hume's argument is that the prior is not a mere assumption, but it is itself based on overwhelming evidence, and, therefore, carries its weight. That said, I think WLN sets the bar too low for the amount of evidence that is required to believe in Jesus' resurrection.
What is the evidence that he’s stating has been provided?
However we forget that regardless of the probability, or indeed additional probabilities, it can never be seen as a certainty.
“ Humes argument is fallacious and here is my fallacious reasoning as to why”
Not buying it. Here is your divide by zero point: You've insisted that your Belief is an actual, substantial probability and it is not. Hume is dead but he still mops the deck with Doc Craig. BTW, Christianity is a bunch of nonsense and not true.
This is a laughably terrible attempt by WLC to “debunk” Hume
Be careful not to confuse the probability of the evidence given that he is guilty with the probability of guilt given the evidence. It is a mistake made often in law
Of course! The resurrection becomes much more likely when I choose to believe all the unsubstantiated stories that claim it happened...what nonsense is this?
Right, how the hell do people take this seriously!? Its absolute nonsense!
Imagine a world where no one had been murdered. Now imagine a world in which the #1 murderer relationship-wise, is a spouse or (ex-)lover. Build your analogy from those two circumstances.
That is worthy of what I believe they call a, "mic-drop."
once again clicked on your video and found that title is misleading
Cameron certainly has a pattern of misleading titles. One has to wonder why he can't be honest in his approach.
@@theoskeptomai2535 It seems he is optimizing for clicks, not care much about truth, religion, or philosophy. While title always promises something new the content is dishonest and disappointing.
@@MrGluepower I agree.
I cant believe anyone with a small bit of logic cant understand this. The resurrection hypothesis is so strong, that Jesus mythers came about to say that He didnt exist at all
There is no prior on God, therefore we cannot use Baye's theorem to prove God.
“Why don’t you explain this to me like I am an 8 year old”
Do atheists have a hard time believing what they can’t see? Do they expect to see all the evidence for the resurrection in a four minute video and conclude there is none of it’s not in there?
They expect theists to spoon feed the evidence to them because the Law of Burden of Proof (tm) forbids them from using Google.
Not at all, I just know people can and do make up claims. And convince others they are true when they are not. And if you give YOUR folks special dispensation as to... they could NOT have lied... well, I guess you would have to believe every claim wouldn't you?
Taylor Walston you mid the point they would have been the stupidest people to lie about Jesus resurrection because this would get them no where, no money, or anything also people don’t willingly die for a lie yet we know many disciples died for their belief
The question is, what types of evidence count for a resurrection (or even the specific capital-R Resurrection which has many more special features than just "Jesus was dead for three days and then he was alive again").
@@gabepearson4732 Maybe they didn't lie, yet came to a mistaken conclusion. (Just like the vast majority of Muslims, Mormons, and so on.)
Craig's comparison to court evidence is fallacious. Every court immediately throws out supernatural explanations. Otherwise we'd still be burning witches at the stake.
@G Will Please explain which part of my statement was incorrect. Thanks.
Supernatural can you define that?
@@antipositivism3128 I'm happy to go with a manifestation or event attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
Even with the evidence the probability is very low
Lol why would one consider the proboblity of the supernatural being and "explanation" before its even shown to be a "posibility" ?? 🤔🤔
Does Craig think Hulme's Maxim fails because he disregards the posibility that invisible pink unicorns farted the universe into existence ??
I think not ......
This just sounds like Swinburne’s idea that it’s simply more probable that a creator/god set everything in motion than all these natural processes on our world coming together by chance, and and therefore, that’s the explanation we should go with. Not very convincing. By his own logic, miracles like the resurrection, or raising Lazarus from the dead, casting out demons, etc. are incredibly unlikely, and thus any other explanation that seems more likely is probably what we should go with. For example, if someone was say, accidentally buried alive, and we dug them up and found them alive, would it be more likely that he was literally resurrected from the dead, or would it be more likely that he was mistakenly buried alive. We have only a handful of examples of resurrection from the Bible, and no further examples since. We have MORE examples of people being mistakenly buried alive throughout history, and thus it must be more LIKELY that the man was buried alive, rather than that the man was resurrected from the dead.
I think a better example of a kind of miracle to counter the one I gave would’ve been to mention late stage cancer patients that go into remission and become healthy again with no medical explanation. Science can’t explain it, so one might posit that it’s more likely a miracle occurred, given the lack of scientific explanation and science’s failure to correct or cure said condition. The intelligent design argument is a lot more interesting and complex than people give it credit for a lot of the time, because there’s always a rebuttal to be made, regardless of which side of the argument you’re on.
It's still a miracle that Hume's argumemt still stands and not refuted given that analogy given by Dr. WLC since that is anthropocentric law vs natural law.
Craid per se did not give it. He is reciting what theorists and mathematicians' answer is to the concept "that extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence". It requires no more evidence than what would be expected, given the evidence present if that accounts for the event's probability to occur more than not occur.
Yeah chief, these captions are cringe.
Logical Liberty Blame RUclips! They basically only promote videos with a high click-through-rate (in other words, they force creators to use click-bait).
@@CapturingChristianity Point taken -- I hadn't thought of the algorithms. Shameful @ RUclips though...
@@CapturingChristianity I see loads of creators that don't succumb to the pressure. In other words, nobody is forcing your hand here, you're basically doing it for clicks
roy s Yes, I’m doing it for clicks, but not just for the numbers. I want my channel to be successful. I want more people to view my content, more people to be changed by the message.
@@CapturingChristianity You're right, and I understand that. Just please take care not to let this pressure influence your tone or intellectual honesty too much. The world in general, and RUclips in particular, is polarised enough already.
Keep in mind that people are ready to believe what you say, even when you yourself know you're being hyperbolic.
It's considering the evidences that we get to the conclusion that the resurrection is the least probable possibility. If the husband was already dead then even if there were a few witnesses that would sware the husband came back to life and killed his wife, it would still be the least possible hypothesis.
In your example of the husband coming back from the dead seems like a contrivance. While all agree that people have been resuscitated on occasion, there is disagreement as to whether a miraculous interruption in the laws of nature from God every occur. I have to presume you did not mean being resuscitated though. Nobody expects such an interference in your example, whether they are Hume, or me, or WLC or anybody else. It would be a contrivance. For example say a man owed a big debt to a bookie who was about to rough him up to make an example of him, and the man claimed he had just won the lottery out of the blue. The question Hume should have addressed is whether nature is ever interfered with. He avoided this question, making his essay worthless. There are many reports claiming nature was interrupted, just as there are many reports of people winning the lottery. The context of the claims and whether they are contrived have a bearing on if the individual ones occurred. Certainly there are people that have claimed to have won when they did not as a joke or to get out of trouble with a bookie in desperation etc.
@@reasonforge9997 what do you mean by all agree that people have been resuscitated on occasion?
@@GaudioWind Well I can't actually be sure every single person agrees. Just that there is wide agreement that people who have been considered clinically dead have recovered. Was trying to get that out of the way, because I do not think that is what was meant by "coming back from the dead" in the sense you meant. Certainly it is not the sense meant when people talk of the Resurrection. Rather in that case people mean that God changed what normally occurs in nature to make an exception. Did you actually mean that the fellow who may have killed his wife was merely clinically dead for a bit on the operating table and came back due to the competence of medical care and luck etc?
@@reasonforge9997 well, I think I didn't really understand your point. My point was that Hume was right and WLC was wrong because even considering the evidences in favor of the resurrection of Jesus it's still the least probable possibility. Do you agree with that? I think WLC tried to compare the case for the resurrection of jesus with a case of a murder of a wife. I tried to do the same but obviously my conclusion is different of his. What do you think?
@@GaudioWind On my view WLC's criticism in the video was not very good nor was Hume's original essay very good either. I hardly think WLC "destroyed" Hume's argument, I considered it already destroyed. Seemed to me WLC was just using the murder suspect thing as an illustration of the difference between prior probability vs the adjustment of prior probability in Bayesians Probability--because Hume was making something similar to a Bayesian approach. WLC's criticism seemed to simply be that Hume was leaving off the adjustments for new evidence...which I think is not exactly true....but is maybe sorta true. Hume rather was acknowledging there could be evidence for Miracles but was insisting it hardly mattered how much because Hume found the prior probability so incredibly low. And indeed Hume's argument for such a low probability was circular...namely he dismisses all reports of miracles as false because the probability is so very low of one being true, but in order to conclude the probability was that low he uses the "fact" that all the reports of miracles are false. Now of course he does not expose his circular reasoning that plainly, but dresses it up with other things. Hume was not a mathematical genius like Descartes or Leibnitz, but he was a good communicator and had skill with the English language. As more of a math/logic guy, I find Hume quite lacking, but hey, he was far more influential than most of us will ever be.
Well the problem here is that if you are a naturalist, you will set the prior probability to 0. And if you arent a physicalist than you might set it to some pther arbitraty probability, preferably 50% or less.the difference between a murder and a resurection is that murders happrn all the time whereas ressurections (at least the type described in the bible) have never happened.
Also, what if i were to show you miracles of other religions and show them to be verifiably true. For example, take the case of khempo acho who was a Buddhist monk who when he died shrank and vanished and strange occurences were experienced by the people of his town, like strange lights, rainbows above the area where he died, amd even some eye witnesses saying they saw him phasing walls. This was even confirmed by a catholic priest who was invetsigating this event. One would have to account for why these miracles occur. A naturalist might say that in fact these are not supernatural occurences but just natural occurences we cant explain yet. A non-naturalist might say they are super natural but might not posit a god as an explanation, but instead hold to some form of religiouse pluralism like John Hick. Or perhaps some sort of religiouse skepticism like "there is a god or god-like thing but we cant make claims about its nature"
That's the best shot!!!
Theists who are already committed to the miraculous think Craig’s argument was marvellous. In real life it sounded weak and wordy and not impressive at all. But that’s just me cause I’m stupid.
Purposefull Arrangement , what’s your very best single evidence for the miraculous ?
I think I can help clarify (it was a little wordy). David Hume only accounted for one type of probability, intrinsic probability. However, there are many more factors that determine the probability of anything (I'm sure you can think of those). That's all Craig needs to say, but he wanted to use an analogy so that a high school student could better understand what other factors of probability there are.
Craig was not making an argument for miracles here, he was trying to explain a flaw in the reasoning of David Hume's argument against Miracles. So if you find that he did not convince you that Miracles happen, then that should hardly be surprising. The question was about whether Hume's argument that they do not happen was a good one.
@@reasonforge9997, I don’t doubt Hume would tweak his argument if he were alive and responding to Craig. Others have explained Hume’s position from a more favourable stance. See John Loftus’ book The Case Against Miracles.
@@Alefbet777 Well if Hume were to come back to life somehow to respond to Craig, I think the explanation of how he did so would be of more concern than Craig's little criticism here. Really I don't think Craig did a good job in his criticism here. I think CS Lewis did a much better job of criticizing Hume in "Miracles". I should hope Craig would give a better response himself elsewhere than he did in this video. What he said here was not quite right about Hume...in the sense that Hume did at least mention that there was some weight to the evidence of witnesses of alleged Miracles. The way I might quickly try to describe the fatal flaw in Hume's approach would be that his calculation of prior probability is regressive...relying on his calculation of prior probability. Seems to me Hume just did the math wrong, and no amount of "tweaking" will help make it work.
No atheist can stand a chance when Dr. Craig takes them to task.
God did a unique miracle for me during a time of nation wide economic fail. I wasn't looking for it.
details, pls :-)
Cili PB
Miracles dont happen..Dr Craig..you don't understand Science or Ancient History...no Miracles have ever been established by Science...so fallacious Analogies don't refute Hume..he was a Genius...you are not!
I've read Helms "Gospels Fictions".written in 1988..yet Craig,Licona,Habermass actually believe the Resurrection was an historical event..so Craig V Millican...he spouts the same old tired nonsense..God created the Cosmos ...he even said if life was found elsewhere in the Universe,that would not refute Christianity because God can create life anywhere...ha
He keeps redefining his God to avoid scientific Refutations..then when Science claims it can't find God..Craig cries Scientism..a tautology ha..
ruclips.net/video/HIbSXtJM-zw/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/IRGnV6yWlGs/видео.html
Oh yes. Links and examples in: www.richardcarrier.info/archives/15106
@@rationalsceptic7634 it's in my RUclips channel. But you need to speak spanish. Gos used business people.
What's the probability the resurrection happened compared to the probability of naturalistic explanations?
Craig's analogy was pretty awful - not least because it's not exactly a rarity for a husband to murder his wife.There's no miracle claim in the analogy.Hume was addressing a situation in which,in every past instance,the result was always the same.While true that,if in one instance,there was outstanding evidence that an anomaly occurred then it's permissable to accept that an anomaly did indeed occur,it rather depends on whether people saying it occurred is sufficient.Even after all that,there's still the issue of explaining why that anomaly occurred & there may be several explanations which have no reliance on the supernatural.
The fault Craig makes is at the 3 minute mark. He asserts that there is evidence (of the ressurection). But there is no evidence, words in the bible are no evidence whatsoever.
I agree there is no evidence for a 'ressurection' in the Bible - what ever that is.
Classic
Dutch Buddhist That’s like saying evidence presented in a court of law isn’t evidence because “words in a court aren’t evidence.”
It all depends on what exactly the words say. Eyewitness testimony is certainly evidence. The Bible presents eyewitness testimony. In fact, eyewitness testimony tends to be the strongest evidence; stronger than circumstantial and material evidence, particularly if multiple sources are testifying the same thing; which is precisely what we have in the New Testament.
@Stefan Urban then I guess because your statement is a claim, it is self-refuting.
How do we learn things about history? Using that approach, we can arrive at several historical facts that relate to the resurrection claim that make it the best hypothesis.
But Dr. Craig's claim is false. Hume does discuss the evidentiary end of the calculus. He simply says that the probability that human testimony alone is false can never in practice (not necessarily in theory, I would add) be low enough to override the very low prior probability of the truth of a resurrection( or other miracle) claim. It can be formulated as a sound Bayesian analysis, but it's really just the explication of an epistemic rule of thumb that we use intuitively, all the time.
Funniest part is that Hume is famous for the problem of induction and thus cannot even establish the probability of any event
Well, I think it is something philosophers could drive themselves crazy with. However, perhaps Bayesian calculus shows the way out. In fact, I just read Bayes may have invented it for that purpose. Hume did not have access to it, but seems to be intuitively applying something like it in his argument against miracles.
@@snuzebuster How would bayed theorem solve the problem of induction seems like one of those solutions that completely miss the mark
@@antipositivism3128 I didn't say it solves the problem. I just don't think it's a real problem outside philosophy. We have various heuristics we all use intuitively all the time. Philosophers explicate the rules for us. None of them are fool proof, but that doesn't mean we just toss them. To me the problem of induction is mainly a warning to be cautious about trying to derive universals from inductive inferences. WRT to miracles, i.e., violations of inductively inferred natural law. No, we cannot say with 100% certainty that they are impossible, just that as far as we know it seems to be. We can say with a very high degree of confidence that human error and deceit are exceedingly more common occurrences. If a murder suspect claimed the knife miraculously self animated and stabbed the victim to death, no jury on earth would believe the suspect. Not a perfect analogy but same principle.
@@snuzebuster The problem of induction doesn’t entail that we be careful about deriving universals from particulars this is a common misconception . It concludes induction is basically begging the question and thus groundless
It seems by the looks of these comments Atheists have CC on Post Notifications.
In the meantime know yu are making yourselves responsible.
I think Bill is just mad that after a lifetime of study, he still can't hold an intellectual candle to David Hume.
What a laugh.
Awww, how adorable. Keep telling yourself that. The whole goal of apologetics is to make you feel better about your mythology, Bill is great at that. It's why us apostates just laugh at him.
Wow! You can come up with a lot of vitriolic remarks but not much substance.
@@gch8810 says the vapid interlocutor.
The probability of the resurrection once you bring in the evidence is still low. The typical examples of evidence for the resurrection are things like the origin of the apostles' faith and their alleged willingness to die for their beliefs. But the resurrection hypothesis is not required to account for things like the origin of the apostles' faith or their alleged willingness to die for their beliefs, nor is it even the best explanation. So Craig is implying too much that Hume's argument is overturned because of the supposed "evidence" of the resurrection, because there is simply is no good evidence.
Dr. Russell Hemanti with a 1000$ video card and a 60$ camera.
Oh, my Spaghetti monster, what a load of crock!
Hume’s reasoning can be run on every piece of supposed evidence for the resurrection. Suppose someone offers the writing of the gospels as evidence for the resurrection. Hume can then ask what’s more likely, that someone witnessed a man rising from the dead and then wrote about it to spread the word (even though the gospels say the world was about to end with the Second Coming, so there would have been no hope of telling everyone in that fashion they’d better repent, before it would have been too late, especially since the gospels were originally kept to different Christian communities) or that oral traditions (gossip and dialogues) based on Judaism, Gnosticism, Greek philosophy, and the Mystery religions were stitched together over time into written works and were eventually passed off as eyewitness accounts to bolster the churches that emerged?
Or suppose a Christian says the spread of early Christianity is explained by the miraculous resurrection. Hume could then say the success of early Christianity is more easily and simply explained by positing only that (1) the Christian message rode the wave that started with the Axial Age revolutions that included critiques of religions and philosophies from around the world, leading to Zoroastrianism, the Jewish prophets, Jainism, Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism, Socrates, and the Mystery religions; (2) the Christian message fulfilled a spiritual demand that the stale Roman religion in particular wasn’t satisfying; and (3) lots of religions successfully grow from cults into organized institutions, because we’re social creatures and are subject to sociological and political dynamics that tend to build on each other to protect us within larger and larger groups and institutions.
The Christian miracle claim is an extraordinary one, but there’s no extraordinary evidence to support it. There are all sorts of simpler scenarios that can’t be ruled out, given our overall lack of evidence pertaining to the matter. It’s far easier to believe Jesus staged his death and resurrection to start a spiritual revolution, disappeared into obscurity, and the ensuing gossip and rumors turned into the Christian creed, than that a man miraculously rose from the dead.
And it’s even easier to believe there either was no historical Jesus and the whole story was stitched together as an allegorical commentary on Jewish scriptures, or that there were many righteous Jews whom the Romans abused or executed, and Paul’s letters, Q, and the gospels represented complementary Jewish ways of reconciling themselves to those injustices. Jews turned to their scriptures and comforted themselves with an emerging tale of Jesus, a fictional hero who would have stood for the untold Jewish victims of Roman oppression. The fiction was then historicized for political reasons, as Elaine Pagels says, to lend support to the emerging Christian institutions.
If you don’t think myths and urban legends can arise from next to nothing, have a look at how social media and the internet work. We’ve been gossiping and building on each other’s rumors for thousands of years. Indeed, gossip seems to serve an evolutionary function, since it reinforces our status in the social hierarchy.
Total nonsense, there is no such thing as extraordinary evidence. Evidence is evidence, by saying that you need extraordinary evidence, you agree that there is evidence.
@@gingerale7729 Evidence comes in degrees of quality, depending on how many obvious alternative, deflationary explanations there are for it. For example, the evidence for astrology is weak and ordinary, because the horoscopes are always vague and uplifting rather than specific and negative. Extraordinary evidence for astrology would have to be unusual in the sense of being not so obviously fraudulent, as in different from the usual evidence offered which is so easily explained away as subjective, ambiguous, exploitative, and so on.
There are many religions out there, and Christianity is supposed to be exclusively true, meaning that Christians reject all other religions whereas Hindus, for example, are more inclusive. So critics can ask whether the evidence for Christianity is extraordinary in the sense of being incomparable to the kind of evidence that supports other religions. Is Christianity the only religion with scriptures and miracle claims or do all religions have such evidence? Were the key early Christian witnesses of miracles world-famous individuals at the time, leading to multiple lines of independent testimony, or were they anonymous nobodies (comparable to farmers alone who see UFOs in the middle of nowhere)?
Vim pelo Malakoi.
Poor wlc
Do u really believe that hume was this weak?
Poor Divyansh Veer
Do you really believe that Craig is this weak?
Craig is honestly just asserting that Hume is only considering this "hypothetical probability" (whatever that is) and not the probability given the evidence, and he's completely wrong at that.
Hume was an empiricist and believe all we could know was based on our observations, based on evidence, so he clearly didn't believe in any hypothetical probability outside of evidence. Hume argued that miracles are impossible because you will always have more evidence that a miracle did not occur than that it did in every case where you ask the question. There's always more evidence that the natural laws aren't violated than that they are when asking any question.
Even if we consider that all this evidence Craig is presenting to be true, there's still way more evidence that the resurrection didn't happen than that it did. There's literally more evidence that Jesus was just unconscious for the days they thought he was dead and woke up and lied to his disciples.
Because and least that doesn't break the laws of nature
Yikes. “Destroys” is a bit of an overstatement 😅
It’s actually not. Dr. Craig’s response stems from John Earman’s book “Hume’s Abject Failure.” Hume’s argument conflicts with Bayes Theorem.
@@CapturingChristianity Applying Bayes' theorem to supernatural events is a bad idea. It's impossible to know the probabilities required to make the calculation.
I know this i's popular with apologetics, but it simply doesn't work.
@@CapturingChristianity For example: to calculate the probability of God existing given the evidence, you would need a "prior probability" of God existing, without looking at any evidence.
Some people have put this prior probability at 0.5: we know nothing, therefore it's fifty-fifty.
But that's, well, stupid. If it worked like this, then every supernatural claim that had just a shred of evidence in its favour would end up having a probability greater than 0.5
Capturing Christianity oh, that makes a little more sense. Would’ve helped if I knew that part before I watched the video. I’ll look into it. Thanks!
This wasnt very convincing. Seems like a desperate attempt to justify an unwarrented belief.
Look at the evidence = a desperate attempt to justify an unwarrented [sic] belief
Sure...
Call that a refutation?
It accurately pointed out a flaw in Hume’s argument. It was not supposed to be a full refutation. You atheists really grasp at straws in order to prove that your favorite atheist did not have his argument disproven.
@@gch8810 "to refute him has been, ever since he wrote, a favourite pastime among metaphysicians. For my part I find none of their refutations convincing"
-Bertrand Russell.