The real religion?

[Angrboda]

This is pure hogwash.  All he's done is repackage the extraordinary claims maxim to make it sound like it supports his position.  It's nothing more than semantic tom foolery.  'Probability theorists' have long recognized that this is a problem of Type I statistical error, not Type II, as Craig implies.  When dealing with extraordinary claims it is perfectly reasonable to demand greater confidence intervals in the result.  That's all it says, and it's a well respected principle of science.  That's why you have different confidence intervals in the physical sciences than in the medical sciences.  That Craig wants to beg out of standard scientific principles is understandable, but hardly acceptable.

And how should we weigh the probability of event happening without a supernatural cause? What is the probability of a crippled man walking from natural causes at the precise time Jesus commanded him to walk? Are you saying that is not a factor?

Or perhaps it's evidence of trickery, or it's evidence that legends develop and are mistaken for history. What does this have to do with whether extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? We've discussed this example before, so I can only assume it's part of your standard toolkit to introduce it. Our agreement from that last discussion was that people are gullible, with my clear implication that this included the authors of the bible. However, if someone were to go into a hospital and command a confirmed cripple to walk, and he did, that would be extraordinary evidence itself, so I don't see what your point is. What it would be evidence of is another matter. How does any of this show that extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence?