Low Probability that god raised someone from the dead

[wigginhall]

Probability of some not believing, even if one rose from the dead : 100%   (Luke 16:31)

But if Christians went around visibly healing people and raising the dead, there would be great interest.  But it ain't happening.  Why not?

[Shaker]

Wiggy, by all means pull me up if I am wrong, but since I've been back on R & E I've noticed a distinct change in the tone and tenor of your posts - you come across as being considerably more sceptical and considerably harsher on sloppy, careless thinking and bad arguments than I remember you of old.

It's just an impression, mark you well, but a strong one based on what I've noticed these past few weeks 

[Alien]

...

As for your note about atheists judging you before you present the evidence, then note 1 that not all comments were by atheists and 2 you and I (and others on here) have gone down these arguments before. This makes your statement incorrect , quite possibly disingenuous and certainly a lazy generalization.

You are right, yer know. Only 22 of the 24 statements were by atheists (that I know of).

  Then either your awareness or your ability to count is at fault.

Apologies if I have included as atheists anyone who is not. I know ht and wigginhall are not. Have I missed anyone?

BA

Sorry, BA.

Only 21 of the 24 statements were by atheists (that I know of).

Can I suggest you stop rushing at this since this is your third mistake on a simple point. BA made three posts not one.

Perhaps rather than making such egregious repeated errors, you stop with the desperate and incorrect attempt to portray yourself as some sort of victim and just deal with the arguments rather than being irrelevantly wrong multiple times.

Point taken about the sums.

[wigginhall]

Wiggy, by all means pull me up if I am wrong, but since I've been back on R & E I've noticed a distinct change in the tone and tenor of your posts - you come across as being considerably more sceptical and considerably harsher on sloppy, careless thinking and bad arguments than I remember you of old.

It's just an impression, mark you well, but a strong one based on what I've noticed these past few weeks 

Spot on, Shaker.  I think I'm getting old, and I can't stand crap arguments and equivocation.  Christianity seems to have plenty of both.

[Sassy]

For this to be a good argument (that God raised Jesus from the dead), the probability of it being true needs to be higher than the probability of it not being true, i.e. >50%. On occasions people here have said that there are infinite number of possible other explanations for what is recorded in the NT (the empty tomb, etc.). That may be the case, but it is irrelevant. If the probability of those individual other explanations total less than 50%, it means that the probability of God having raised Jesus from the dead is greater than 50%. The percentages I quoted as examples, i.e. 12.5%, 6.25%, 3.125% and so on were part of a sequence where, though infinitely long, only total 25%, thus showing that it is possible to have an infinite number of other possible explanations, yet still have a total of less than 50%.

Be interested to see Al show his workings.

We all know we'll see confirmation bias but it would be nice to see it openly exposed.

Before we proceed down a road of arguments about the probability of someone being raised from the dead let us look how the percentage is
Justified....

Show us the evidence and prove the percentage and basis are factual.

You cannot do this.. If comparing the unexplained which men have seen with their own eyes even caught on camera today. UFO's, poltergeist, Ghostly apparitions and other strange entities... not to mention we supposedly exist in a universe showing no other signs of life...Healing etc. Then there is NO way of showing a percentage for possibility of God raising Christ from the dead...

[jakswan]

Then there is NO way of showing a percentage for possibility of God raising Christ from the dead...

I agree, may I introduce to Al, he disagrees, discuss....

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wiggy, by all means pull me up if I am wrong, but since I've been back on R & E I've noticed a distinct change in the tone and tenor of your posts - you come across as being considerably more sceptical and considerably harsher on sloppy, careless thinking and bad arguments than I remember you of old.

It's just an impression, mark you well, but a strong one based on what I've noticed these past few weeks 

Spot on, Shaker.  I think I'm getting old, and I can't stand crap arguments and equivocation.  Christianity seems to have plenty of both.

Have you had your blood sugar checked. Crabbiness might be a bad sign.

[Shaker]

More likely to be mature onset bullshit intolerance.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

More likely to be mature onset bullshit intolerance.

What MOBI?

You only get that if you're a Dick.

[torridon]

 

[wigginhall]

Wiggy, by all means pull me up if I am wrong, but since I've been back on R & E I've noticed a distinct change in the tone and tenor of your posts - you come across as being considerably more sceptical and considerably harsher on sloppy, careless thinking and bad arguments than I remember you of old.

It's just an impression, mark you well, but a strong one based on what I've noticed these past few weeks 

Spot on, Shaker.  I think I'm getting old, and I can't stand crap arguments and equivocation.  Christianity seems to have plenty of both.

Have you had your blood sugar checked. Crabbiness might be a bad sign.

Fuck off.

[torridon]

 

[Leonard James]

Wiggy, by all means pull me up if I am wrong, but since I've been back on R & E I've noticed a distinct change in the tone and tenor of your posts - you come across as being considerably more sceptical and considerably harsher on sloppy, careless thinking and bad arguments than I remember you of old.

It's just an impression, mark you well, but a strong one based on what I've noticed these past few weeks 

Spot on, Shaker.  I think I'm getting old, and I can't stand crap arguments and equivocation.  Christianity seems to have plenty of both.

Have you had your blood sugar checked. Crabbiness might be a bad sign.

Fuck off.

OOOooooooo! Did you 'ear wot 'e said?

[Shaker]

Did somebody a swears?

[Leonard James]

Did somebody a swears?

It's alright for troopers, but not for refeened gentlemen. 

[BashfulAnthony]

Did somebody a swears?

It's alright for troopers, but not for refeened gentlemen. 

I'm one of the last few left, sweetie.   

Well done wigginhall:  they're bringing you down to their level.       

[Shaker]

No no, Wiggles is his own chap, and speaks for himself as he has always done; he doesn't need anybody else's influence to be a Sweary Mary pottymouth speak as he sees fit.

[jeremyp]

Then there is NO way of showing a percentage for possibility of God raising Christ from the dead...

Correct.

There are several ways to estimate the probability of a dead person coming alive again.  The simplest way is to pick a random selection of the people who have died and count how many of them came alive again.  If we take everybody who died in the 20th century (OK not a random sample, but it will do for illustrative purposes),  and count how many were resurrected,  we get a probability of 0/5.5 billonish.  Even accepting all of the reports of resurrection at face value, it's still probably millions to one against.

Of course, if God is involved, he could choose to resurrect just a handful of people in the whole of history in which case the sample size needs to be enormous  to get anything other than zero.  My methodology above would be equivalent to selecting 100 people who bought lottery tickets yesterday, checking if any of them win the jackpot on Saturday and, when they don't, concluding that it is impossible to win the lottery jackpot.

I could try calculating the probability another way, just as with the lottery we can figure out the probability of winning the jackpot through permutations and combinations.  I could look at the probability in quantum mechanical terms of the particles of the dead person spontaneously jumping into a state where they constitute a living person.  This is possible but astronomically unlikely.  There again, if God exists, he could nudge the particles into the correct configuration.

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.  If God id necessary to make the resurrection credible as well, we have a circular argument.  Secondly, it's impossible to calculate probability if somebody is loading the dice.  If you want to use probability at all, you have to assume God does not exist - or at least is not influencing the experiments.

[BashfulAnthony]

Then there is NO way of showing a percentage for possibility of God raising Christ from the dead...

Correct.

There are several ways to estimate the probability of a dead person coming alive again.  The simplest way is to pick a random selection of the people who have died and count how many of them came alive again.  If we take everybody who died in the 20th century (OK not a random sample, but it will do for illustrative purposes),  and count how many were resurrected,  we get a probability of 0/5.5 billonish.  Even accepting all of the reports of resurrection at face value, it's still probably millions to one against.

Of course, if God is involved, he could choose to resurrect just a handful of people in the whole of history in which case the sample size needs to be enormous  to get anything other than zero.  My methodology above would be equivalent to selecting 100 people who bought lottery tickets yesterday, checking if any of them win the jackpot on Saturday and, when they don't, concluding that it is impossible to win the lottery jackpot.

I could try calculating the probability another way, just as with the lottery we can figure out the probability of winning the jackpot through permutations and combinations.  I could look at the probability in quantum mechanical terms of the particles of the dead person spontaneously jumping into a state where they constitute a living person.  This is possible but astronomically unlikely.  There again, if God exists, he could nudge the particles into the correct configuration.

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.  If God id necessary to make the resurrection credible as well, we have a circular argument.  Secondly, it's impossible to calculate probability if somebody is loading the dice.  If you want to use probability at all, you have to assume God does not exist - or at least is not influencing the experiments.

If it is the resurrection of the soul, you won't see the bodies, will you.  Don't assume, like the cheap films, that the resurrected are like a bunch of zombies, stomping about.

[jeremyp]

If it is the resurrection of the soul, you won't see the bodies, will you.  Don't assume, like the cheap films, that the resurrected are like a bunch of zombies, stomping about.

So you are of the opinion that Christ was not raised physically?  Only his soul was resurrected? 

That is a genuine question.  Some Christians do believe that.

[BashfulAnthony]

If it is the resurrection of the soul, you won't see the bodies, will you.  Don't assume, like the cheap films, that the resurrected are like a bunch of zombies, stomping about.

So you are of the opinion that Christ was not raised physically?  Only his soul was resurrected? 

That is a genuine question.  Some Christians do believe that.

I admit that I do not know;  but I do not rule anything out:  only a fool does that.

[Leonard James]

I'm one of the last few left, sweetie.   

In your dreams! You may not resort to swearing, but your vituperative and insulting jibes are as far from refined as expletives. Sweetie. 

[jakswan]

I was rather hoping Al would give us an insight into his process even if (its not even wrong - agree with NS).

Lets take two historical narratives.

1. Yesterday I took my dog, Charlie, for a walk.
2. Two thousandish years ago a man was killed and came back to life again

So is it more probable that I took my dog for a walk yesterday? If not why not?

[Andy]

I was rather hoping Al would give us an insight into his process even if (its not even wrong - agree with NS).

Lets take two historical narratives.

1. Yesterday I took my dog, Charlie, for a walk.
2. Two thousand  ish years ago a god allowed himself, in human form, to be killed but made himself alive again.

So is it more probable that I took my dog for a walk yesterday? If not why not?

No, because god can be added to any scenario and not be falsified. If you changed 1 to, "Yesterday I took my dog, who is god in canine form, for a walk" and compared that with 2, which is more probable? That's where we need a method to at least begin calculating some probability, but at the moment I don't see how that is possible as we are confined to perceiving naturalistic phenomena plus the added problem of a god not being constrained where nature is.

However, if you remove god from 2 and change it to, "Two thousandish years ago a man was killed and came back to life again" then I would undoubtedly say 1 is more probable.

[jakswan]

I was rather hoping Al would give us an insight into his process even if (its not even wrong - agree with NS).

Lets take two historical narratives.

1. Yesterday I took my dog, Charlie, for a walk.
2. Two thousand  ish years ago a god allowed himself, in human form, to be killed but made himself alive again.

So is it more probable that I took my dog for a walk yesterday? If not why not?

No, because god can be added to any scenario and not be falsified. If you changed 1 to, "Yesterday I took my dog, who is god in canine form, for a walk" and compared that with 2, which is more probable? That's where we need a method to at least begin calculating some probability, but at the moment I don't see how that is possible as we are confined to perceiving naturalistic phenomena plus the added problem of a god not being constrained where nature is.

However, if you remove god from 2 and change it to, "Two thousandish years ago a man was killed and came back to life again" then I would undoubtedly say 1 is more probable.

Will take that advice and have edited post, I wonder if Al will reply?