(June 28, 2016 at 2:03 pm)SteveII Wrote:(June 28, 2016 at 1:42 pm)Irrational Wrote: To remove ambiguity, have the letters represent certain events so we can examine what exactly you're arguing. What does A stand for in this case? And what do B and E stand for exactly?
And also, how the hell would the probability of a crippled man standing up and walking when requested to do so go way up if a miracle had not taken place? Do you mean it'll become no longer extremely low probability? Perhaps we'll get the answer when you clarify what you're arguing exactly.
I simple do not have the time to reword something and post it here. If you really want to know, click the second link.
John Earman wrote a book on this as it related to miracles.
http://www.amazon.com/Humes-Abject-Failu...0195127382
I found out about it from the debate between Bart Ehrman and WLC. If you want to know the whole argument, click on WLC First Rebuttal.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-there-...#section_3
Let's go with the second link then.
I see the formula, but where's the maths? WLC apparently didn't assign prior probability values and didn't do any calculations, which is really confusing because what's the point of talking about Bayesian probability in a debate if there are no calculations made?