Do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? Jonathan McLatchie vs Jonathan Pearce

Unbelievable?

Premier Unbelievable?

Christianity, Religion & Spirituality

4.6 • 2.3K Ratings

🗓️ 14 January 2022

⏱️ 89 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' is often used as a maxim by skeptics against modern miracle claims and Biblical miracles. Christian apologist Jonathan McLatchie and atheist blogger Jonathan Pearce debate the 'prior probabilities' involved in miracle claims and the evidence for the resurrection. For Talk About Doubts: https://talkaboutdoubts.com For Jonathan McLatchie: https://jonathanmclatchie.com For Jonathan Pearce: https://onlysky.media/tippling --- For exclusive resources and to support us: • Confident Christianity apologetics course: http://www.premier.org.uk/getconfident • Support (USA): http://www.premierinsight.org/unbelievableshow • Support (rest of the world): https://my.premier.org.uk/donate/donate-unbelievable-2021 • For our newsletter https://www.premier.org.uk/Unbelievablenewsletter • For our blog: http://www.premierinsight.org/unbelievable-the-blog • For the podcast: http://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable • Facebook https://www.facebook.com/PremierUnbelievable • Twitter https://twitter.com/unbelievablejb • Insta https://www.instagram.com/justin.brierley

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	So let's say this is the resurrection Jesus. I look at this and say, right, the evidence
0:11.4	for the resurrection Jesus is very, very, very small, very low value indeed. So if I was
0:16.8	to believe the claim that Jesus was resurrected, I would need to fill up my pint glass with
0:20.6	a lot more stuff. The fact that miracles do, in fact, stand out against this regular natural
0:26.9	order, the way nature normally behaves, cannot be taken as evidence against miracles when
0:32.8	you use the signs because that very hypothesis predicts with very high probability that that's
0:36.8	exactly what you'll find. We are going to be today actually arguing about
0:40.9	why are our background knowledge is why are our world views different. You're listening
0:46.9	to unbelievable with Justin Brielly. Hello and welcome back to the show, a proper
0:55.1	old debate for you today, atheist blogger Jonathan Pierce versus Christian Apologist Jonathan
1:00.7	Maclatchee. Unbelievable is the place for conversations that matter. We've got some real
1:05.1	corkers lining up for the start of the year. And if you enjoy this show, you might enjoy
1:09.6	our other podcasts from Premier Unbelievable currently airing some long form talks from
1:14.2	Tom Wright on the Ask NT Write Anything podcast on Jesus for everyone and Jesus the Revolutionary.
1:20.9	And a new season of the CS Lewis podcast with Alistair McGrath is just starting up at the
1:25.2	moment. Talk about Lewis and the meaning crisis. I'm currently covering for Ruth Jackson
1:30.0	as host of that at the moment. And with exciting news of more podcasts, more resources and a
1:35.3	new mini website coming soon. That'll be ahead of the launch for brand new fully fledged
1:40.3	website for Premier Unbelievable at our unbelievable conference in May. Planning to bring you
1:45.8	full news of that soon as well. But for now, put Saturday the 14th of May in your diary
1:52.9	will be making sure that this is fully accessible from anywhere in the world online. But we
1:57.7	will be back in person as well in London. Your feedback is coming up later on in the
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Premier Unbelievable?, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Premier Unbelievable? and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.