Low Probability that god raised someone from the dead

[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 ...

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.

Is that why you ignored the substantive point of my post, that saying, 'why not?' about what God could do, is a kind of intellectual suicide?

[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.

Is that why you ignored the substantive point of my post, that saying, 'why not?' about what God could do, is a kind of intellectual suicide?

I have no idea as to why God does or does not do things in any given situation;  and it is arrogance on anybody's part, atheist or atheist, to purport to know.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

Is that why you ignored the substantive point of my post, that saying, 'why not?' about what God could do, is a kind of intellectual suicide?

I have no idea as to why God does or does not do things in any given situation;  and it is arrogance on anybody's part, atheist or atheist, to purport to know.

how do you know the difference between a God action/inaction?

[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 ...

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.

Is that why you ignored the substantive point of my post, that saying, 'why not?' about what God could do, is a kind of intellectual suicide?

I have no idea as to why God does or does not do things in any given situation;  and it is arrogance on anybody's part, atheist or atheist, to purport to know.

But you interpreted my first post as if I was saying that, whereas I was criticizing it.  The 'why not?' is from Alan (Alien), who seemed to be saying, yes, God could do X, why not?  But you seem to be saying that I was saying that, God as a Father Christmas.   How come?

[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.

Is that why you ignored the substantive point of my post, that saying, 'why not?' about what God could do, is a kind of intellectual suicide?

I have no idea as to why God does or does not do things in any given situation;  and it is arrogance on anybody's part, atheist or atheist, to purport to know.

But you interpreted my first post as if I was saying that, whereas I was criticizing it.  The 'why not?' is from Alan (Alien), who seemed to be saying, yes, God could do X, why not?  But you seem to be saying that I was saying that, God as a Father Christmas.   How come?

I was referring to atheists generally, when they seem to think that God should behave like a Father Christmas, attending to our every need, whatever.  It is a simplistic and untenable position to adopt; and rather immature.

[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 ...

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.

Is that why you ignored the substantive point of my post, that saying, 'why not?' about what God could do, is a kind of intellectual suicide?

I have no idea as to why God does or does not do things in any given situation;  and it is arrogance on anybody's part, atheist or atheist, to purport to know.

But you interpreted my first post as if I was saying that, whereas I was criticizing it.  The 'why not?' is from Alan (Alien), who seemed to be saying, yes, God could do X, why not?  But you seem to be saying that I was saying that, God as a Father Christmas.   How come?

I was referring to atheists generally, when they seem to think that God should behave like a Father Christmas, attending to our every need, whatever.  It is a simplistic and untenable position to adopt; and rather immature.

Well, I'm not an atheist, and the 'why not?' is not mine, it belongs to Alan (Alien).   So you interpreted my criticism of that as a reformulation of it.   

[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.

Is that why you ignored the substantive point of my post, that saying, 'why not?' about what God could do, is a kind of intellectual suicide?

I have no idea as to why God does or does not do things in any given situation;  and it is arrogance on anybody's part, atheist or atheist, to purport to know.

But you interpreted my first post as if I was saying that, whereas I was criticizing it.  The 'why not?' is from Alan (Alien), who seemed to be saying, yes, God could do X, why not?  But you seem to be saying that I was saying that, God as a Father Christmas.   How come?

I was referring to atheists generally, when they seem to think that God should behave like a Father Christmas, attending to our every need, whatever.  It is a simplistic and untenable position to adopt; and rather immature.

Well, I'm not an atheist, and the 'why not?' is not mine, it belongs to Alan (Alien).   So you interpreted my criticism of that as a reformulation of it.

So you don't agree with that comment?  It is not really relevant whether you are an atheist or agnostic, or how you designate you position.

[wigginhall]

I forgive you. 

[BashfulAnthony]

I forgive you.

I always do, as well.

[jakswan]

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).

There isn't much point is there?

I'll ask you to give you about few historical facts and ask you to give your probability for each. A few weeks of evasion, claiming its not relevant, a dash of obfuscation, a lot of what aboutery, a holiday, being really busy in work, eventually you will concede confirmation bias.

Then you will pretend to not understand 'confirmation bias' and confuse it will plain old simple 'bias' and return a few weeks later to pretend none of this really happened.

[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).

There isn't much point is there?

I'll ask you to give you about few historical facts and ask you to give your probability for each. A few weeks of evasion, claiming its not relevant, a dash of obfuscation, a lot of what aboutery, a holiday, being really busy in work, eventually you will concede confirmation bias.

Then you will pretend to not understand 'confirmation bias' and confuse it will plain old simple 'bias' and return a few weeks later to pretend none of this really happened.

OK. If you don't want to discuss it, you don't have to.

[Hope]

The very wording of the thread title is meaningless.  If God is able to do something, human understanding of probability will have gone out of the window before the phrase is uttered.

[floo]

The very wording of the thread title is meaningless.  If God is able to do something, human understanding of probability will have gone out of the window before the phrase is uttered.

If the deity is able to raise someone from the dead, why doesn't it get its finger out and do something useful like feeding the starving for instance?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The very wording of the thread title is meaningless.  If God is able to do something, human understanding of probability will have gone out of the window before the phrase is uttered.

If the deity is able to raise someone from the dead, why doesn't it get its finger out and do something useful like feeding the starving for instance?

Do you not think the human race can feed it's starving?
On the other hand we are unable to raise from the dead.

[Jack Knave]

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.

Me too. I wonder where he is going to get a good sample size from? He hasn't really even got 1.

[BashfulAnthony]

The very wording of the thread title is meaningless.  If God is able to do something, human understanding of probability will have gone out of the window before the phrase is uttered.

If the deity is able to raise someone from the dead, why doesn't it get its finger out and do something useful like feeding the st...

More apposite, why don't we do something about the starving?  What do you do?

[Shaker]

More apposite, why don't we do something about the starving?  What do you do?

Why is it more apposite simply to dodge the question and pass the buck (for obvious reasons) from a supposed supernatural entity of perfect knowledge, perfect benevolence and unlimited power - indeed, powerful enough to magic a universe into existence - to fallible human beings working with limited powers and partial information?

Which one of those two groups could not merely remedy all hunger of every and any kind instantaneously but could prevent it even from occurring in the first place?

Same tired, lame, painfully transparent excuses.

[jeremyp]

The very wording of the thread title is meaningless.  If God is able to do something, human understanding of probability will have gone out of the window before the phrase is uttered.

Wow.  I agree with you about something.  In fact I think you put the point really well.

[Shaker]

... unwittingly, however

[BashfulAnthony]

More apposite, why don't we do something about the starving?  What do you do?

Why is it more apposite simply to dodge the question and pass the buck (for obvious reasons) from a supposed supernatural entity of perfect knowledge, perfect benevolence and unlimited power - indeed, powerful enough to magic a universe into existence - to fallible human beings working with limited powers and partial information?

Which one of those two groups could not merely remedy all hunger of every and any kind instantaneously but could prevent it even from occurring in the first place?

Same tired, lame, painfully transparent excuses.

Funny, that:  I was just going to say a similar thing about your hackneyed comment!

[Shaker]

Funny, that:  I was just going to say a similar thing about your hackneyed comment!

Hackneyed means "well used" rather than "wrong," though, doesn't it? And it wouldn't be so well used if somebody would at least attempt to mount a coherent defence, which they never do.

[Hope]

Funny, that:  I was just going to say a similar thing about your hackneyed comment!

Hackneyed means "well used" rather than "wrong," though, doesn't it? And it wouldn't be so well used if somebody would at least attempt to mount a coherent defence, which they never do.

So, reading BA's post, his use of 'hackneyed' would seem to be very appropriate.

As for your complaint about no-one mounting a coherent defence, the 'hackneyed' response to the many such defences that have been presented is that none of them are coherent because they rely on non-scientific material - as if life revolves around scientific material and nothing else.

So, where is your coherent defence of your position, Shaker.  You and others have been asked this question on more than plenty of times, yet none of you have ever come up with one.

Why?

Because the two sides of the debate are dealing in very different outlooks on 'life, the universe and everything' (to quote a famous author!)

[Leonard James]

Because the two sides of the debate are dealing in very different outlooks on 'life, the universe and everything' (to quote a famous author!)

True! One side is taking the scientific, evidence based outlook, and the other is taking an outlook based on guesswork as to what might be.

[Shaker]

So, reading BA's post, his use of 'hackneyed' would seem to be very appropriate.

As I said, hackneyed means "well-used," and is not a synonym for "wrong."

As for your complaint about no-one mounting a coherent defence, the 'hackneyed' response to the many such defences that have been presented is that none of them are coherent because they rely on non-scientific material - as if life revolves around scientific material and nothing else.

So, where is your coherent defence of your position, Shaker.  You and others have been asked this question on more than plenty of times, yet none of you have ever come up with one.

Why?

You can't have been looking very hard then. Which part of my position specifically do you want me to defend - are you referring back to #137 onwards and the lame cop-outs by theists and the excuses they make about their incredible shrinking god, who can poof a universe into existence out of nothing and suspend the laws of nature (adult human being walking on water; woman made pregnant without having one of her ova fertilised by a sperm, etc.) at will if it supposedly happened so long ago that nobody can now examine it, but when called upon to do something actually good and useful (i.e. prevent millions, babies, children, the elderly and frail, the mentally and physically ill amongst them, from dying in a genocide) suddenly isn't fit to keep a whelk stall? Or did you mean something more general?

If you want a rational and coherent defence of any part of my position, stance, worldview or whatever you care to all it then - leaving aside the prior point that you can't have looked very hard and have obviously missed all those times in the past when it has been defended, by me and many others - just ask and it'll be provided any time, any place, any where, and it will trump any of the inane fatuities that religionists ever concoct because it will be based on the good stuff that we need to get about successfully in the universe - reason, evidence, logic and what have you - and because as at least two major theists ([sic] - theists, not atheists) to my knowledge have said (Miguel de Unamuno is one; Martin Gardner is another), atheism has by far all the better arguments and the stronger case.

... and, furthermore, given your highly selective way of responding only to those points which you reckon you can take on with the same limp lettuce responses whilst leaving the difficult questions/points well alone - several of them mine, recently - you're in no position to lecture people on who responds to what.

Because the two sides of the debate are dealing in very different outlooks on 'life, the universe and everything' (to quote a famous author!)

I was going to say in response to this exactly what Lenny has just said.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, reading BA's post, his use of 'hackneyed' would seem to be very appropriate.

As I said, hackneyed means "well-used," and is not a synonym for "wrong."

As for your complaint about no-one mounting a coherent defence, the 'hackneyed' response to the many such defences that have been presented is that none of them are coherent because they rely on non-scientific material - as if life revolves around scientific material and nothing else.

So, where is your coherent defence of your position, Shaker.  You and others have been asked this question on more than plenty of times, yet none of you have ever come up with one.

Why?

You can't have been looking very hard then. Which part of my position specifically do you want me to defend - are you referring back to #137 onwards and the lame cop-outs by theists and the excuses they make about their incredible shrinking god, who can poof a universe into existence out of nothing and suspend the laws of nature (adult human being walking on water; woman made pregnant without having one of her ova fertilised by a sperm, etc.) at will if it supposedly happened so long ago that nobody can now examine it, but when called upon to do something actually good and useful (i.e. prevent millions, babies, children, the elderly and frail, the mentally and physically ill amongst them, from dying in a genocide) suddenly isn't fit to keep a whelk stall? Or did you mean something more general?

If you want a rational and coherent defence of any part of my position, stance, worldview or whatever you care to all it then - leaving aside the prior point that you can't have looked very hard and have obviously missed all those times in the past when it has been defended, by me and many others - just ask and it'll be provided any time, any place, any where, and it will trump any of the inane fatuities that religionists ever concoct because it will be based on the good stuff that we need to get about successfully in the universe - reason, evidence, logic and what have you - and because as at least two major theists ([sic] - theists, not atheists) to my knowledge have said (Miguel de Unamuno is one; Martin Gardner is another), atheism has by far all the better arguments and the stronger case.

... and, furthermore, given your highly selective way of responding only to those points which you reckon you can take on with the same limp lettuce responses whilst leaving the difficult questions/points well alone - several of them mine, recently - you're in no position to lecture people on who responds to what.

Because the two sides of the debate are dealing in very different outlooks on 'life, the universe and everything' (to quote a famous author!)

I was going to say in response to this exactly what Lenny has just said.

How do you define a ''major theist''?