You have misunderstood what I said anyway. Remember, this thread is about "Does God Exist? And Was Jesus Resurrected." I am not contending that the phrase ECREE cannot be supported by Bayes Theorem. I never even suggested that. Rather, a closer reading of my posts will reveal that my contention with ECREE is that it is subjective when engaging in discussions about the topic of this thread....even if you employ Bayes to establish if God exists. In other words, Bayes can support the phrase ECREE but it does not guarantee that the inputs will always be indisputable or conclusively objective. That's the key.
This is called in the trade "special pleading". You are rationalizing exceptions to suit yourself !
reminded me in an earlier post, it is not sufficient to claim a logical fallacy without explaining why you label it as such. Please explain how this is special pleading because I think you have erred.
If the inputs are not indisputable, they are not extraordinary evidence, whatever the subject. It is not because Bayes Theorem does not work, it is because the claim has failed.
You just stated that the inputs are disputable by stating that they are "not indisputable." Regardless, I think I know what you were intending to say and, if so, I do not disagree. So, now I have a question" How likely do you think it would be that you and I could agree on the inputs for a Bayes probability calculation to address whether God exists or not? This is a VERY important question so please provide an answer.
Also, in response to one of your requests, the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a claim because it represents an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt. And, just as a side note, since this claim is often used in an effort to establish the validity of other claims, it seems more than reasonable that ECREE itself be deemed an “extraordinary claim” for which there is NO evidence (extraordinary or otherwise) that could ever be used to support it. I don't think you can even use Bayes for that one.
So you are claiming that Bayes Theorem is invalid in an attempt to protect your irrational beliefs ! ! !
Huh? Where in my post does it say anything to that effect?
The phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a form of Bayes Theorem in ordinary English words. There is nothing extraordinary about the phrase or its claims, it is the inevitable consequence of the sequence of probabilities and conditional probabilities in Bayes Theorem. It is impossible to escape the consequence that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" from Bayes Theorem.
So, is it your position that regardless of the nature of the "extraordinary claim," Bayes will always produce an equally reliable probability? In other words, are you claiming that a Bayes probability calculation for 100 coin flips is on par with a probability calculation for determining if God exists? If so, you obviously do not understand Bayes well enough to know that prior probability often relies on an ignorance measure for which there is no bullet-proof method.
I also want you to see that you are trying to rationalize irrational beliefs by making contradictory statements such as these two sentences above.
I am not contending that the phrase ECREE cannot be supported by Bayes Theorem.
there is NO evidence (extraordinary or otherwise) that could ever be used to support it (ECREE).
Is it supported or not?
You are introducing two quotes with distinctly different subjects. If you had been more careful in your reading, you would have understood that the second quote refers to ECREE being an "extraordinary claim" in itself. That was rather clear. If you believe that the extraordinary claim inherent in ECREE can be supported by Bayes, I would be substantially impressed if you could demonstrate that.