Here is my claim: the scientific contents of my interpretation is a major piece of evidence for the veracity of the biblical account of Adam and Eve, and for Christianity as a whole. In other words, I’m not settling for mere “compatibility” with the known sciences; what we have here is actual, strong, positive evidence, and everyone needs to adjust their beliefs accordingly.

Last week, I presented my argument for Jesus's resurrection, in an hour-and-a-half talk given to MCB Apologetics - a ministry of the McLean Bible Church. And it went really, really well! The organizer (who's a high school friend of mine) told me that he thought the talk went incredibly well, that it was really fantastic. […]

This was the state of the "Bayesian evaluation for the likelihood of Christ's resurrection" post, as of Easter 2020. This post will remain unchanged, while the linked post above will have further edits. I also put up a Facebook post on that date, which is essentially the same as the 2019 Facebook post. The offer […]

This was the state of the "Bayesian evaluation for the likelihood of Christ's resurrection" post, as of Easter 2019, in the "third draft" form. Some of the formatting has been lost in the blog migration, particularly in the Jupyter notebooks, but the content has been retained. This post will remain unchanged, while the other post […]

This is a slide deck that I put together for my day job. It explains Bayesian hierarchical modeling. Bayesian hierarchical modeling (slide deck) Bayesian hierarchical modeling (pdf) It's given in the context of A/B testing and multiple comparisons, and assumes some knowledge of Beta distributions - but even if you don't have that background, it […]

When faced with the argument presented in Bayesian evaluation for the likelihood of Christ's resurrection, a common tactic is to try to push the prior lower. After all, this is one of the very few options available when one has no evidence on their side. But as I argued in the post itself, this will not […]

This was the state of the "Bayesian evaluation for the likelihood of Christ's resurrection" post, as of Easter 2018, in the "second draft" form. Some of the formatting has been lost in the blog migration, particularly in the Jupyter notebooks, but the content has been retained. This post will remain unchanged, while the other post […]

This is still a work in progress. It will change as I continue to add and edit the content. I consider this to be in its "third draft" form. It will take some more time to complete, and it may be messy in the meantime. A version of this post as it appeared on Easter […]

At long last, we can summarize this entire series. First, we calculated the prior odds for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This prior cannot be zero. That would violate one of the fundamental tenets of Bayesian thinking, and it is not empirically justified, since we have not observed an infinite number of people who did […]

We will consider some more miracles from other religions, but the conclusions here are not difficult to reach. A full-blown analysis is not necessary, as none of them reach anywhere near the level of evidence in Jesus's resurrection. We can just draw parallels to our previous analysis. So, for example, there's a story of Ichadon, […]