If you read what WLC wrote (the beginning of my post), you will notice he didnt try to proove the resurrection by analogy, but to question if "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is true
I did read and understand the extract. The author uses a lottery analogy to question the ECREE rule of thumb and the apparent purpose of that analogy / quesiton was, I infer in part from your commentary, to set himslef up to make some other analogy to make the resurection, or anything else extraordinary he might advocate, seem plausible to his audience.
WLC only talk of a single guess coming out correct, not one of all guesses made being correct.
Not quite, he seeks to apply the rule of thumb to ANY and EVERY lottery result since, he says, all specific lottery results are 1:x,000,000 events. He said nothing (in the extract) about advance guessing. Thus he says the ECREE rule of thumb requires the viewer's skepticism in all lottery results since x,000,000 other combinations could have been drawn.
As you rightly said in the OP, ECREE is an inadequate rule to be applied at the standard of rigour required to actually establish anything - eg: what is 'extraordinary'?. It wasn't formulated for application to contemporary reports on a recent event. It was put to set a rough guide for the level of skepticism required when confronted with claims odd events are explained by demons, aliens, witchcraft, conspiracies etc.
One flaw is that the newsreader and lottery officials are not making a claim. They are making a report on a recent past event based in multiple lines of verifiable evidence such as independent eye witnesses, documentation, video tape and whatever other measures a properly conducted lottery takes to ensure the integrity of their process. That is, it is a verifiable report and not a claim or an assertion: Sagan cited this rule of thumb to address claims and assertions, not such factual reports. (This goes to the application of the rule of thumb, not the lottery or resurection examples.)
Thus Craig makes a mischevious, spurious and plain silly argument picking fault in a rule of thumb he missapplied. A strawman I think.
In any case, if one gets over all that and says a factual report is equivilent to a 'claim', one can say that an announcement of the results to a well conducted and fair lottery result is:
1) not an extraordinary claim since the fact of six numbers being drawn is a near certainty and all results are equally likley; and
2) subject of extraordinary evidence (ie: all the integrity measures in place for a fair lottery are more than are in place for ordinary events, whatever ordinary is).
Well, as i allready replied in most science results are considered sufficient extraordinary to warrent publication when its 1:20.
I know you're being devil's advocate, but I'd really like to see a peer reveiwed journal article published saying a lottery resulting in numbers beig drawn is suprising. In my joy and mirth I'd be looking out the window for flapping swine.
but thats just affirming the consequent: in effect, you are now arguing that the reason why WLCs objection to the claim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is flawed is that extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. its not an argument.
Quite right it's not a direct argument on the author's misapplication of ECREE or anything to do with the author's spurious objection: it was a response to a lawyer's musings on evidence. Of course ECREE is a good general guide, but it does not suplant any more rigerous standard like the rules of evidence for a court or scientific standards.
Saying its a matter of methaphysics and not science to discuss the resurrection is exactly the type of conclusion WLC want to arrive at
Maybe. But that dosn't deminish the burden of proof required to establish Jesus was resurected. And meth does results in delusions, I'm told.
The reason why WLC has such an easy time with many atheists and is held in high regard by christians is exactly because his argument are very often met by name calling and knee-jerk reactions that are easily dismantled. your intuition is correct, but that dosnt mean any argument is too.
Whatever.
I think we're all in sufficently furious agreement.
