Dawkins vs. Bayes

Recently we've taken a look into several atheist arguments that seem valid on the surface, but are actually circular reasoning.  In particular, we've discussed Richard Dawkins, Bart Ehrman, and David Hume.  Dr. Dawkins assumes God cannot exist in his attempt to prove God does not exist.  Dr. Ehrman assumes miracles are probability zero (i.e., impossible) in his attempt to show that miracles are not accessible historically.  Hume assumes one must see a miracle in order to prove a miracle.  But besides circular reasoning, what do each of these have in common?  Each of their arguments are easily defeated by simply applying rigorous probability theory.

More on Richard Dawkins' Circular Reasoning.

In line with our most recent post here at The Cumulative Case, which exposes Richard Dawkins' circular reasoning, there is a nice post from the Two Books Approach that discusses the same idea.  Below is the relevant excerpt from that post (But math-o-phobes beware: there is a dose of Bayesian inference!).  Enjoy!

Richard Dawkins' Circular Reasoning on Fine-Tuning

I have recently noticed atheists making a lot of claims that are not based on reason, but on their own philosophical presuppositions.   Problem is, this is circular reasoning.  Over the next series of posts, we'll take a look at a few of these claims; today, we'll focus on a claim by Richard Dawkins.