The Christian Vanguard

The following was an essay I turned in for class. There were footnotes, but those didn't copy over. The copying also made the Bayesian formula a little weird, but I did my best to make it look like a legit equation.  David Hume has a two pronged argument against belief in miracles. The first is granting for the sake of argument that a full proof could be given for a miracle. Since the full proof for a miracle stands against a full proof against it, the miracle cannot be believed. The second is that in actuality, there has never been a full proof mounted for a miracle, so even more so miracle cannot be believed.  Hume sets out as a principle of knowledge that one proportions his belief to evidence. When one comes to two competing propositions that needs to be judged, one proposition may tip the scales, so to speak, and the weightier proposition will be the more probable one. Now miracles are defined as a violation of the laws of nature. What establishes a law of nature...

When discussing the resurrection of Jesus with non-believers, whether they are hostile to religion or not, the slogan, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” often comes up. It is very common. It is too common. There are many different ways one could approach this claim, by either asking for clarification (what constitutes something being extraordinary?) or by laying a burden of proof (what’s so extraordinary about the Son of God coming back to life?) but for now, I want to take a look at the form of the question.