Provided presumptions (1), (2), and you can (3), how does new conflict towards the basic conclusion wade?
Observe today, basic, the proposition \(P\) goes into just to your earliest therefore the 3rd of those premises, and secondly, that the knowledge out-of these premises is readily safeguarded
Fundamentally, to determine another end-that’s, one to in accordance with our record degree and offer \(P\) it is likely to be than simply not that Jesus doesn’t exists-Rowe need singular additional assumption:
\[ \tag <5>\Pr(P \mid k) = [\Pr(\negt G\mid k)\times \Pr(P \mid \negt G \amp k)] + [\Pr(G\mid k)\times \Pr(P \mid G \amp k)] \]
\[ \tag <6>\Pr(P \mid k) = [\Pr(\negt G\mid k) \times 1] + [\Pr(G\mid k)\times \Pr(P \mid G \amp k)] \]
\tag <8>&\Pr(P \mid k) \\ \notag &= \Pr(\negt G\mid k) + [[1 – \Pr(\negt G \mid k)]\times \Pr(P \mid G \amp okcupid apk k)] \\ \notag &= \Pr(\negt G\mid k) + \Pr(P \mid G \amp k) – [\Pr(\negt G \mid k)\times \Pr(P \mid G \amp k)] \\ \end
\]
\tag <9>&\Pr(P \mid k) – \Pr(P \mid G \amp k) \\ \notag &= \Pr(\negt G\mid k) – [\Pr(\negt G \mid k)\times \Pr(P \mid G \amp k)] \\ \notag &= \Pr(\negt G\mid k)\times [1 – \Pr(P \mid G \amp k)] \end
\]
But because of presumption (2) we have one \(\Pr(\negt G \middle k) \gt 0\), during look at assumption (3) you will find one to \(\Pr(P \middle G \amplifier k) \lt step one\), meaning that you to definitely \([step 1 – \Pr(P \mid Grams \amplifier k)] \gt 0\), as a result it after that pursue regarding (9) you to
Read More »Provided presumptions (1), (2), and you can (3), how does new conflict towards the basic conclusion wade?
