How unlikely are God and/or other "supernatural" things?

[Stranger]

If you want to calculate the probability of anything then you need a method (which includes all aspects of data and analysis) that is probability-apt.

You might rightly conclude that the chap in the shiny suit and confident manner is not to be trusted, but that is a subjective judgement based on experience and intuition and is not a calculation of the probability in the statistical sense: he could be scrupulously honest, but with questionable taste in suits and haircuts: the question is how you would test the probability that he was wrong?

If there is no method suited to the nature of the claim being made then probability in the statistical sense isn't calculable.

As I said, nobody would suggest calculating it, it's just that the number of possibilities (stories you could possibly make up about a situation) must be vastly greater than the number that would render a baseless guess true - the ratio of the two being what probability fundamentally is.

The specific point is that it makes no practical difference if the guess is about something labelled "supernatural" or is just about something totally unknown but supposedly natural.

[Nearly Sane]

As I said, nobody would suggest calculating it, it's just that the number of possibilities (stories you could possibly make up about a situation) must be vastly greater than the number that would render a baseless guess true - the ratio of the two being what probability fundamentally is.

The specific point is that it makes no practical difference if the guess is about something labelled "supernatural" or is just about something totally unknown but supposedly natural.

Any calculation that makes no difference, with 'practical', shows my understanding of the methodology. If it makes no sense within the methodology, it isn't a calculation.

[Nearly Sane]

You keep repeating these claims but never actually back them up. What methodology?

If something is logically self-consistent and doesn't directly contradict something that is known (that is an actual fact, not a theory that might have exceptions, no matter how well tested), what practical difference does labelling it "supernatural" make to whether you regard it as likely or not?

I wrote the above before I read this, but it's possible if it is logically self-consistent and doesn't directly contradict a known fact. What additional methodology do you think is needed?

This has already been covered. You are working within an assumption, harder or softer, of naturalism.

[Nearly Sane]

You have asserted that history is methodologically naturalistic. Make good your claim.

To explain, once again, the study of history is methodologically naturalistic. Might help if you didn't ignore what is said, or minequote! Can I have an apology for you saying a part sentence was a sentence?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As blue said in #75; "When someone with a $5,000 suit and an ambitious haircut says, “Give me all your money and I will give you the keys to heaven” we have no choice but to work out whether or not to believe him. Is he more probably right or more probably wrong?"

It seems to me this example is more about the probability of being ripped of by men in sharp suits wanting your money than the supernatural.

He has just taken the question "would you buy a used car from this man"  and substituted car with heaven.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To explain, once again, the study of history is methodologically naturalistic. Might help if you didn't ignore what is said, or minequote! Can I have an apology for you saying a part sentence was a sentence?

I'm not arguing that history is not studied in that way or that there isn't a naturalistic school of history or even a naturalistic history.

What I am saying is that there are forms of history which show no bias for or against any philosophical position and many histories have been written thus.

History is not science chiefly because science deals with repeatability and history is frequently about the unique.

We can also end up with Marxist and great men schools of history but I believe this sort of distinction is frowned on in science.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can I have an apology for you saying a part sentence was a sentence?

Yes, but in a grudging kind of Father Jack way.
As you seem the sort of chap who needs to be apologised to regularly and I have recently neglected to indulge that.....

.......and may I apologise ahead for anything that might have upset you in this post?

[Stranger]

Any calculation that makes no difference, with 'practical', shows my understanding of the methodology. If it makes no sense within the methodology, it isn't a calculation.

What is the methodology you keep on about? I've outlined several times now how you can know that the probability is low for baseless stories and why the label "supernatural" makes no difference to it. Any time you want to actually address that, get back to me.

[Walter]

Yes. Are you saying Jesus didn't exist?

I am .

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I am .

Why?

[Walter]

Why?

evidence, evidence, evidence ? or do you mean Jesus was a popular name in them days ?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

evidence, evidence, evidence ? or do you mean Jesus was a popular name in them days ?

If you say Jesus was absent from history then you must have an even more reliable history. Present it or shut up.

[Roses]

If you say Jesus was absent from history then you must have an even more reliable history. Present it or shut up.

I think a guy called Jesus existed and possibly  stood out from the crowd, but I very much doubt the less than credible things the gospel writers attributed to him were true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think a guy called Jesus existed and possibly  stood out from the crowd, but I very much doubt the less than credible things the gospel writers attributed to him were true.

Those objections are based on what one believes possible rather than history though unless you have a more reliable history although I can see you do not share Walters position.

[Roses]

Those objections are based on what one believes possible rather than history though unless you have a more reliable history although I can see you do not share Walters position.

The Bible cannot be classified as a history book, imo.

[Walter]

If you say Jesus was absent from history then you must have an even more reliable history. Present it or shut up.

nope! just a more reliable set of reasoning skills .

present your evidence or shut up . Do you know what , it's the same old same old . heads and brick walls .

[Roses]

I have asked this question many times, but never had a satisfactory answer. If Jesus was everything claimed for him, why did he disappear up to heaven, instead of remaining here on earth and putting his miracles to good use?