Low Probability that god raised someone from the dead

[Shaker]

Low Probability that god raised someone from the dead

Low probability there's a god in the first place. It doesn't get any lower.

ippy

There is an extremely low probability of human-like life existing elsewhere;  but it doesn't stop twerps here arguing the case.

Who has argued that human-like life exists elsewhere in the cosmos, exactly?

[Nearly Sane]

Dearie me, what fresh pish is this?  Miracles only work  if they work out they have no probability.

Why do you claim that?

Because the claim is precisely that it is in natural terms an impossibility (having no probability).

Er, no. A miracle is something without a purely natural cause, surely.

Which in natural terms is an impossibility.

[Alien]

There are several ways to estimate the probability of a dead person coming alive again.

But there are very few ways to estimate the probability of anything to do with God, as you know full well, jeremy.

If you bring God into the equation it becomes impossible to assign a probability to anything.  In Alan's quote from WLC, the logic is absolutely fine.

I appreciate that confirmation. Onto the rest now though...

  In purely natural terms, given what we know of quantum mechanics and entropy (this is B the background knowledge), Pr(M) is virtually zero.

Why? No-one is arguing that Jesus was resurrected naturally. I would agree with you that this probability would be "virtually zero" if that were the claim, but it isn't.

If M is "Jesus was resurrected" then Pr(M|B) is a tiny tiny number.

But Pr(M|B) is the probability that Jesus was raised by God.

   This means that the probability of the evidence we have existing given the resurrection must vastly outweigh the probability of the evidence existing if there was no resurrection. 

N/a, because it is comparing the wrong thing.

And by the way calculating the probability of the evidence we have mustn't just take into account the evidence that exists, it must take into account the evidence that doesn't exist.  For example let's say the "miracle" is Boris Johnson made a speech in the House of Commons today.  So we look for evidence and we find a TV report purporting to show Boris Johnson making a speech today.  So we say P(E|M) is reasonably high and P(E| not M) is fairly low on the grounds we don't normally expect people to fabricate TV news reports.  But wait, we would also expect the speech to be recorded in Hansard.  If the speech is not there, that fact is part of E and it substantially lowers  P(E|M).

I would count that as part of the evidence. If there were no speech recorded in Hansard, that would be better counted as part of the evidence, would it not? It would keep the maths simpler.

That's all well and good, but if God exists, what probability do we assign to M?  If it's the Christian god, it's 1.  If it's the Muslim god, it's 0.  The whole calculation goes out the window because a fundamental assumption where probability is concerned is that there isn't somebody behind the scenes rigging the odds.

"Rigging the odds" is a perjorative way of saying "Fitting the scenario."

Unfortunately, we can't assume God exists for two reasons.  Firstly, the death and resurrection of Jesus is one of Alan's Flakey Five arguments for God. 

No, jeremy, the death and resurrection of Jesus isn't a flakey anything for the existence of God.

You have been on this forum long enough to know what we mean by Alan's "flakey five".  Stop being a dick.

I sort of agree (don't faint). We have to avoid arguing in a circle here. We must not assume that God actually does exist in order to demonstrate that Jesus probably was raised from the dead and then use Jesus having been raised from the dead to demonstrate that God exists. Avoiding this means that the first part of the RHS, i.e. B below, is difficult to calculate

        A                             B                        C

Pr(M|E&B)            =   Pr(M|B)      x    Pr(E|M&B)
-----------               ------------       -------------
Pr(non-M|E&B)        Pr(not-M|B)       Pr(E|not-M&B)


This is the bit I am trying to get my head around. Would you agree that C is a large figure? I'm not asking you to say that C x B >1, but just wanting to see what we do agree on, even if it does bring us to an agreed probability A.

[Alien]

The second ratio on the right hand side (RHS2) is high, i.e. the dozen or so alleged appearances written recorded by apparently honest people and the empty tomb after Jesus had been killed on the cross is much more likely if he had been raised than if he had not.

Apparently honest people whose are unknown, there are levels of probability who wrote the gospels, that they were honest, that they were copied accurately, that they haven't been changed.

High, my arse.

Would you try putting that a bit more clearly (the first sentence. I get the second one).

[Alien]

The second ratio on the right hand side (RHS2) is high, i.e. the dozen or so alleged appearances written recorded by apparently honest people and the empty tomb after Jesus had been killed on the cross is much more likely if he had been raised than if he had not.

Apparently honest people whose are unknown, there are levels of probability who wrote the gospels, that they were honest, that they were copied accurately, that they haven't been changed.

High, my arse.

It's just Alan lying about claims and presenting them as facts as usual.

Playing the man again, I see, NS. How about playing the ball sometimes?

[Alien]

Dearie me, what fresh pish is this?  Miracles only work  if they work out they have no probability.

Why do you claim that?

Because the claim is precisely that it is in natural terms an impossibility (having no probability).

Er, no. A miracle is something without a purely natural cause, surely.

Which in natural terms is an impossibility.

"Natural terms"? What's a "natural term"? If you mean that it has no purely natural cause then why repeat what I have said?

[Nearly Sane]

The second ratio on the right hand side (RHS2) is high, i.e. the dozen or so alleged appearances written recorded by apparently honest people and the empty tomb after Jesus had been killed on the cross is much more likely if he had been raised than if he had not.

Apparently honest people whose are unknown, there are levels of probability who wrote the gospels, that they were honest, that they were copied accurately, that they haven't been changed.

High, my arse.

It's just Alan lying about claims and presenting them as facts as usual.

Playing the man again, I see, NS. How about playing the ball sometimes?

Please stop being a hypocrite as well. You spend 20 to 25 % of your posts making comments about others behaviour, about the same as I do, possibly slightly lower.

[Shaker]

Why chose only "natural terms"?

I suppose because most people like their beliefs about the world to have at the very least a nodding acquaintance with reality.

Why go for only part of the possible picture?

That possible picture also includes certainly a very, very, very large number and possibly an infinite number of other things which you find entirely implausible - in fact downright ridiculous - and in which you disbelieve, though, doesn't it? Some of us happen to include in the "Ludicrously implausible" pile things you take as true, that's all.

[Nearly Sane]

Dearie me, what fresh pish is this?  Miracles only work  if they work out they have no probability.

Why do you claim that?

Because the claim is precisely that it is in natural terms an impossibility (having no probability).

Er, no. A miracle is something without a purely natural cause, surely.

Which in natural terms is an impossibility.

"Natural terms"? What's a "natural term"? If you mean that it has no purely natural cause then why repeat what I have said?

If you did not understand the phrase, how could you have made your first answer? I have naturalistic terms and approaches to evaluate things,  probability being one of those.

So far we have nothing from you.

[Andy]

No-one is arguing that Jesus was resurrected naturally. I would agree with you that this probability would be "virtually zero" if that were the claim, but it isn't.

There is a natural explanation for it though, regardless of whether a god did or didn't intervene. This is an event purported to have happened within the natural world, so it is, by definition, a natural phenomena. You're argument is that nature wasn't used in the way that god originally set it all up, he basically had to change the rules in order to make it possible for the resurrection to happen. Here, I see no way of distinguishing between nature being set up so god didn't have to intervene and nature set up so that he would have to. This is one of the fundamental problems I see that theists have - that theism is indistinguishable from deism.

[Alien]

The second ratio on the right hand side (RHS2) is high, i.e. the dozen or so alleged appearances written recorded by apparently honest people and the empty tomb after Jesus had been killed on the cross is much more likely if he had been raised than if he had not.

Apparently honest people whose are unknown, there are levels of probability who wrote the gospels, that they were honest, that they were copied accurately, that they haven't been changed.

High, my arse.

It's just Alan lying about claims and presenting them as facts as usual.

Playing the man again, I see, NS. How about playing the ball sometimes?

Please stop being a hypocrite as well. You spend 20 to 25 % of your posts making comments about others behaviour, about the same as I do, possibly slightly lower.

Where have a accused anyone of lying though?

[Alien]

Why chose only "natural terms"?

I suppose because most people like their beliefs about the world to have at the very least a nodding acquaintance with reality.

So you assume the supernatural does not exist and therefore the only reality is the physical world, therefore the supernatural does not exist. Cool.

Why go for only part of the possible picture?

That possible picture also includes certainly a very, very, very large number and possibly an infinite number of other things which you find entirely implausible - in fact downright ridiculous - and in which you disbelieve, though, doesn't it?

So what?

Some of us happen to include in the "Ludicrously implausible" pile things you take as true, that's all.

So what?

[Alien]

Dearie me, what fresh pish is this?  Miracles only work  if they work out they have no probability.

Why do you claim that?

Because the claim is precisely that it is in natural terms an impossibility (having no probability).

Er, no. A miracle is something without a purely natural cause, surely.

Which in natural terms is an impossibility.

"Natural terms"? What's a "natural term"? If you mean that it has no purely natural cause then why repeat what I have said?

If you did not understand the phrase, how could you have made your first answer?

The reason I answered orginally was because I assumed you meant "having a natural cause". Having looked at it a second time, I wondered whether that was what you meant.

I have naturalistic terms and approaches to evaluate things,  probability being one of those.

So far we have nothing from you.

? Have a look at the "pish" on the "Low Probability that god raised someone from the dead" thread.

[Alien]

No-one is arguing that Jesus was resurrected naturally. I would agree with you that this probability would be "virtually zero" if that were the claim, but it isn't.

There is a natural explanation for it though, regardless of whether a god did or didn't intervene.

Is it a good explanation though?

This is an event purported to have happened within the natural world, so it is, by definition, a natural phenomena.

By "natural phenomenom" do you mean "the result of only physical causes"? If so, why?

You're argument is that nature wasn't used in the way that god originally set it all up, he basically had to change the rules in order to make it possible for the resurrection to happen. Here, I see no way of distinguishing between nature being set up so god didn't have to intervene and nature set up so that he would have to. This is one of the fundamental problems I see that theists have - that theism is indistinguishable from deism.

I'm not sure I get your point here. Deism means no intervention - no miracles, including no raising of Jesus from the dead. If Jesus was raised from the dead then deism is incorrect and some some form of theism is correct, specifically Christianity.

[Nearly Sane]

Dearie me, what fresh pish is this?  Miracles only work  if they work out they have no probability.

Why do you claim that?

Because the claim is precisely that it is in natural terms an impossibility (having no probability).

Er, no. A miracle is something without a purely natural cause, surely.

Which in natural terms is an impossibility.

"Natural terms"? What's a "natural term"? If you mean that it has no purely natural cause then why repeat what I have said?

If you did not understand the phrase, how could you have made your first answer?

The reason I answered orginally was because I assumed you meant "having a natural cause". Having looked at it a second time, I wondered whether that was what you meant.

I have naturalistic terms and approaches to evaluate things,  probability being one of those.

So far we have nothing from you.

? Have a look at the "pish" on the "Low Probability that god raised someone from the dead" thread.

And? What is your problem with that? Even if you are not familiar with the demotic term, it is understandable in context and could of course be searched for on line.
Are you suggesting pish is not a natural term? Perhaps there is supernatural pish - there certainly seems to be some of it on here.

[Nearly Sane]

The second ratio on the right hand side (RHS2) is high, i.e. the dozen or so alleged appearances written recorded by apparently honest people and the empty tomb after Jesus had been killed on the cross is much more likely if he had been raised than if he had not.

Apparently honest people whose are unknown, there are levels of probability who wrote the gospels, that they were honest, that they were copied accurately, that they haven't been changed.

High, my arse.

It's just Alan lying about claims and presenting them as facts as usual.

Playing the man again, I see, NS. How about playing the ball sometimes?

Please stop being a hypocrite as well. You spend 20 to 25 % of your posts making comments about others behaviour, about the same as I do, possibly slightly lower.

Where have a accused anyone of lying though?

You mean apart from stating that people were deliberately misrepresenting their views on here to avoid having to admit to OM ?

[Andy]

No-one is arguing that Jesus was resurrected naturally. I would agree with you that this probability would be "virtually zero" if that were the claim, but it isn't.

There is a natural explanation for it though, regardless of whether a god did or didn't intervene.

Is it a good explanation though?

Seems you're missing the point. I'm saying there is a mechanism used which would resurrect a dead body. Whatever that is (and I wouldn't claim to know what it is as I currently don't believe it's possible) god would have to use it, but we could only ever investigate the natural explanation and wouldn't know if god used it or not.

This is an event purported to have happened within the natural world, so it is, by definition, a natural phenomena.

By "natural phenomenom" do you mean "the result of only physical causes"? If so, why?

Yes, it has to be. How does physical change happen without physical cause? But as I said, this says absolutely nothing about whether a god did or didn't sit hidden outside of nature twiddling knobs and pulling levers to allow it to happen, so to speak. However, you can apply that to absolutely any natural phenomena.

Edit: Missed the "only". No, I'm not saying only physical, but that physical causes are necessary.

You're argument is that nature wasn't used in the way that god originally set it all up, he basically had to change the rules in order to make it possible for the resurrection to happen. Here, I see no way of distinguishing between nature being set up so god didn't have to intervene and nature set up so that he would have to. This is one of the fundamental problems I see that theists have - that theism is indistinguishable from deism.

I'm not sure I get your point here. Deism means no intervention - no miracles, including no raising of Jesus from the dead. If Jesus was raised from the dead then deism is incorrect and some some form of theism is correct, specifically Christianity.

There is one miracle in deism - the existence of nature itself.  Then god pisses off and leaves it be. A god has the power to set the universe up in such a way that he never ever has to intervene. You're weakening god by saying Jesus wouldn't be resurrected under deism. Deism is not falsified by a being that requires intervention. If anything, if it needs to intervene, why call it god?

[Alien]

...I have naturalistic terms and approaches to evaluate things,  probability being one of those.

So far we have nothing from you.

? Have a look at the "pish" on the "Low Probability that god raised someone from the dead" thread.

And? What is your problem with that? Even if you are not familiar with the demotic term, it is understandable in context and could of course be searched for on line.
Are you suggesting pish is not a natural term? Perhaps there is supernatural pish - there certainly seems to be some of it on here.

I'm not fussed what you call it. What I was referring to was the stuff I had posted on that thread (and which you termed "pish" without, apparently, reading it through and understanding it).

[Alien]

The second ratio on the right hand side (RHS2) is high, i.e. the dozen or so alleged appearances written recorded by apparently honest people and the empty tomb after Jesus had been killed on the cross is much more likely if he had been raised than if he had not.

Apparently honest people whose are unknown, there are levels of probability who wrote the gospels, that they were honest, that they were copied accurately, that they haven't been changed.

High, my arse.

It's just Alan lying about claims and presenting them as facts as usual.

Playing the man again, I see, NS. How about playing the ball sometimes?

Please stop being a hypocrite as well. You spend 20 to 25 % of your posts making comments about others behaviour, about the same as I do, possibly slightly lower.

Where have a accused anyone of lying though?

You mean apart from stating that people were deliberately misrepresenting their views on here to avoid having to admit to OM ?

Where?

[Alien]

No-one is arguing that Jesus was resurrected naturally. I would agree with you that this probability would be "virtually zero" if that were the claim, but it isn't.

There is a natural explanation for it though, regardless of whether a god did or didn't intervene.

Is it a good explanation though?

Seems you're missing the point. I'm saying there is a mechanism used which would resurrect a dead body. Whatever that is (and I wouldn't claim to know what it is as I currently don't believe it's possible) god would have to use it, but we could only ever investigate the natural explanation and wouldn't know if god used it or not.

The only thing we could investigate using scientific methods would be something which was open to a natural explanation and, yes, we would not know if God used it or not. However, raising Jesus from the dead would require a combination of natural events which would be absolutely minute in probability. However, we Christians are not restricted in having to claim that God did it that way. For the creator who created the universe in the first place, why not do it supernaturally? What is most important is, surely, whether he did it rather than how he did it.

This is an event purported to have happened within the natural world, so it is, by definition, a natural phenomena.

By "natural phenomenom" do you mean "the result of only physical causes"? If so, why?

Yes, it has to be. How does physical change happen without physical cause? But as I said, this says absolutely nothing about whether a god did or didn't sit hidden outside of nature twiddling knobs and pulling levers to allow it to happen, so to speak. However, you can apply that to absolutely any natural phenomena.

Scripture teaches that God sustains the universe. If that is try, I find it helpful to think of God as a diving Matt Groenig. If you watch The Simpsons you can see humans standing on the face of the earth held there by gravity, but that is because Groenig and friends are "causing" that gravity. There are two reasons, at different levels, why Homer can stand on the ground. One is gravity and the other is Matt Groenig.

Edit: Missed the "only". No, I'm not saying only physical, but that physical causes are necessary.

Not in Springfield they are not. Groenig could raise Homer above the ground then drop him back. No "physical" cause necessary.

You're argument is that nature wasn't used in the way that god originally set it all up, he basically had to change the rules in order to make it possible for the resurrection to happen. Here, I see no way of distinguishing between nature being set up so god didn't have to intervene and nature set up so that he would have to. This is one of the fundamental problems I see that theists have - that theism is indistinguishable from deism.

I'm not sure I get your point here. Deism means no intervention - no miracles, including no raising of Jesus from the dead. If Jesus was raised from the dead then deism is incorrect and some some form of theism is correct, specifically Christianity.

There is one miracle in deism - the existence of nature itself.  Then god pisses off and leaves it be. A god has the power to set the universe up in such a way that he never ever has to intervene. You're weakening god by saying Jesus wouldn't be resurrected under deism.

I have no need to avoid weakening the idea of a deistic god.

Deism is not falsified by a being that requires intervention. If anything, if it needs to intervene, why call it god?

Why not? If he wants to do something different once in a while for a good reason, why not?

[wigginhall]

It's the 'why not' that kills these arguments.   Sure, God could resurrect Jesus, or the old lady next door.  Come to that, he could make it snow in July, etc. etc.    'Why not?' is Christianity's intellectual suicide.

[Andy]

The only thing we could investigate using scientific methods would be something which was open to a natural explanation and, yes, we would not know if God used it or not. However, raising Jesus from the dead would require a combination of natural events which would be absolutely minute in probability. However, we Christians are not restricted in having to claim that God did it that way. For the creator who created the universe in the first place, why not do it supernaturally? What is most important is, surely, whether he did it rather than how he did it.

And as wigs has just said, there's your whole problem right there when providing a methodology for when god does something or not. You're not restricted to where you can say god did it. There's no means to distinguish between where god causes one phenomena or another. Perhaps it's vanishingly improbable for anyone to fart without god intervening. Why not - I  mean it's not like we're restricted is it?

Scripture teaches that God sustains the universe. If that is try, I find it helpful to think of God as a diving Matt Groenig. If you watch The Simpsons you can see humans standing on the face of the earth held there by gravity, but that is because Groenig and friends are "causing" that gravity. There are two reasons, at different levels, why Homer can stand on the ground. One is gravity and the other is Matt Groenig.

I've seen you use it aplenty and it does you no good. Groening isn't just causing the gravity in the Simpsons - he's the cause of everything in the Simpsons. Singling out gravity as a signpost for Groeningism is to use special pleading, analogous to you and the resurrection of Jesus for god.

Edit: Missed the "only". No, I'm not saying only physical, but that physical causes are necessary.

Not in Springfield they are not. Groenig could raise Homer above the ground then drop him back. No "physical" cause necessary.

I'm pretty sure the creators of the Simpsons don't escape the physical when creating the Simpsons. Not a great analogy.

There is one miracle in deism - the existence of nature itself.  Then god pisses off and leaves it be. A god has the power to set the universe up in such a way that he never ever has to intervene. You're weakening god by saying Jesus wouldn't be resurrected under deism.

I have no need to avoid weakening the idea of a deistic god.

Deism is not falsified by a being that requires intervention. If anything, if it needs to intervene, why call it god?

Why not? If he wants to do something different once in a while for a good reason, why not?

I wasn't suggesting that the god you believe in needs to intervene, but maybe it should know beforehand that it could do all it needs to do (including all those different things for good reasons) at the initial set up, being omniscient 'n all.

Anyway, as you've pretty much scooted past the meat of that quote, deism is not falsified by events that appear miraculous.

[BashfulAnthony]

It's the 'why not' that kills these arguments.   Sure, God could resurrect Jesus, or the old lady next door.  Come to that, he could make it snow in July, etc. etc.    'Why not?' is Christianity's intellectual suicide.

Nonsense!  Another lame-brained answer from one of these shallow thinking characters who seem to picture God as some kind of Father Christmas, who should be bowing to our every need, and bailing us out of every difficulty, like some ancient IMF!

[wigginhall]

It's the 'why not' that kills these arguments.   Sure, God could resurrect Jesus, or the old lady next door.  Come to that, he could make it snow in July, etc. etc.    'Why not?' is Christianity's intellectual suicide.

Nonsense!  Another lame-brained answer from one of these shallow thinking characters who seem to picture God as some kind of Father Christmas, who should be bowing to our every need, and bailing us out of every difficulty, like some ancient IMF!

Well, thanks very much for the character analysis.  It's always good to feel that Christian love.

I thought it was the other way round, that the question 'why not?, in effect says that God could do anything, and why wouldn't he?  That's why I termed it intellectual suicide, since nothing is excluded, except maybe square circles, but hang on ...

[BashfulAnthony]

It's the 'why not' that kills these arguments.   Sure, God could resurrect Jesus, or the old lady next door.  Come to that, he could make it snow in July, etc. etc.    'Why not?' is Christianity's intellectual suicide.

Nonsense!  Another lame-brained answer from one of these shallow thinking characters who seem to picture God as some kind of Father Christmas, who should be bowing to our every need, and bailing us out of every difficulty, like some ancient IMF!

Well, thanks very much for the character analysis. It's always good to feel that Christian love.

I thought it was the other way round, that the question 'why not?, in effect says that God could do anything, and why wouldn't he?  That's why I termed it intellectual suicide, since nothing is excluded, except maybe square circles, but hang on ...

The usual inane come-back.  Since when have Christians been excluded from vigorous debate?  Any comment that irks you, and you play the" Christian love" card.  As an atheist, agnostic, or whatever you are, that then leaves the ground open for you to say what you like, because you don't have to show Christian love!  Well, try to understand:  Christian love is irrelevant to debating, here or anywhere.