Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 10-29-2006, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobinius

No, I don't think that to assign a prior probability of 0 to a miraculous event is correct, from a scientific pov. You do not need evidence that something is not possible, possible in a logical sense. Only logically impossible events have a probability of 0. Secondly, whatever evidence we would gather, miracles would remain at 0 probability. Which again is not scientifically correct.It would mean to nullify any possibility of evidence for miracles (and for God) to appear. On what basis do you sustain that?

Methodological naturalism is needed for the scientific study of events. But that does not imply that miracles are logically impossible. They would become integrated in the universe, and their relation with the world would become part of the natural structure of the world, and like this, they would lose their "miraculous" attribute.

It all depends on how you describe a miracle. Semantically, "miracles" happen, if you mean "outcomes with very low probability". Eg., it is possible that dead may come back to life one day through cryogenics, if the body is preserved before the biochem processes of decomposition become irreversible.

On the other hand, it is crystally clear to a person with modicum of rationality that the "miracles" in the NT are self-described wish-fulfilments. They are denials of reality, at once the metaphores of, and the invitations to, hallucination through self-hypnosis.

Jiri

Toto · 10-29-2006, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobinius

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto
Considered from a Baysian point of view, the probability of a miracle has to be taken as 0. Modern scientists have been conducting experiments for centuries, and have never yet observed a miracle - so even if you started with the idea that a miracle is possible, each experiment over the past several hundred years provides more evidence that a miracle has not occurred and is not possible.

Practically every example of modern scholarship is based on the idea that miracles cannot and do not occur.

No, I don't think that to assign a prior probability of 0 to a miraculous event is correct, from a scientific pov. You do not need evidence that something is not possible, possible in a logical sense. Only logically impossible events have a probability of 0. Secondly, whatever evidence we would gather, miracles would remain at 0 probability. Which again is not scientifically correct.It would mean to nullify any possibility of evidence for miracles (and for God) to appear. On what basis do you sustain that?

Methodological naturalism is needed for the scientific study of events. But that does not imply that miracles are logically impossible. They would become integrated in the universe, and their relation with the world would become part of the natural structure of the world, and like this, they would lose their "miraculous" attribute.

Sorry, I did not explain myself fully.

Start out with the assumption that the probability of a miracle is 50%, which is what you do if you lack any information.

Do a scientific experiment of any sort. Did a miracle occur? Nope. So you revise your estimate of the probability of a miracle downward based on this new information, say to 24%

After two centuries of experiments and revisions, the probability of a miracle approaches 0 to the point where it might as well be 0.

That's why Randi can feel safe about his $1 million challenge.

Bobinius · 10-30-2006, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Sorry, I did not explain myself fully.

Start out with the assumption that the probability of a miracle is 50%, which is what you do if you lack any information.

Do a scientific experiment of any sort. Did a miracle occur? Nope. So you revise your estimate of the probability of a miracle downward based on this new information, say to 24%

After two centuries of experiments and revisions, the probability of a miracle approaches 0 to the point where it might as well be 0.

That's why Randi can feel safe about his $1 million challenge.

Yeah, sounds more reasonable. Of course, you can never reach 0. The only problem is that theists are going to spend some time arguing about the real occurence of miracles. And hey, you cannot test God! What did you expect? God does not perform a miracle whenever you want.

Decypher · 10-31-2006, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Sorry, I did not explain myself fully.

Start out with the assumption that the probability of a miracle is 50%, which is what you do if you lack any information.

Do a scientific experiment of any sort. Did a miracle occur? Nope. So you revise your estimate of the probability of a miracle downward based on this new information, say to 24%

After two centuries of experiments and revisions, the probability of a miracle approaches 0 to the point where it might as well be 0.

That's why Randi can feel safe about his $1 million challenge.

If by "miracle" we are thinking of a direct act of God, why would God necessarily choose to perform one during "any scientific experiment"? or repeated experiments?

gstafleu · 10-31-2006, 10:44 AM

The probability of a miracle is undefined. Probabilities are defined on universes of possible outcomes. If my universe consists of 75 white and 25 red marbles, I can define the P(white) as 0.75. But we don't have a universe with observed miracles from which to calculate a possibility. End of argument. (And this whole business of "the probability that God exists" is pure bogus as well.)

Unless you want to be thermodynamic about it. Thermodynamically water could indeed change to wine. The probability of that is probably (

) less than one in N, where N is the number of particles in the universe.

Look up some thermodynamics, quantum mechanics and collapse to irreversible states if you really want to pursue this line.

Gerard

darstec · 11-01-2006, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobinius

Yeah, sounds more reasonable. Of course, you can never reach 0. The only problem is that theists are going to spend some time arguing about the real occurence of miracles. And hey, you cannot test God! What did you expect? God does not perform a miracle whenever you want.

Yet the bible says otherwise. Remember the passage, ask and you shall receive?" It doesn't say , "ask and you will get an answer which could be maybe or no." And that particular passage says nothing about faith. Christianity's god as failed to deliver numerous times. Maybe that Joshua character knew no more about god than one's dog.

Decypher · 11-01-2006, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

(And this whole business of "the probability that God exists" is pure bogus as well.)

Could you expand on that?

If there is very little chance of God existing, then there is very little chance of miracles. It seems to me that if there is a high chance of God existing then miracles become more plausible. This seems legit to me. (Of course, it may be difficult to work out the probability of a Deity existing.)

el-pepo · 11-14-2006, 02:13 PM

Miracles specific to Christianity are everywhere (I can't speak for other religions). Here's one of many from Medjugorje.

http://www.visionsofjesuschrist.com/weeping360.htm

Now sit back and watch the well-rehearsed arguments that roll in!

SpellStitchedNerd · 11-14-2006, 05:11 PM

You mean the fact that the article named no doctors who decreed the leg broken and almost needing amputation, no named witness that saw the apparition as well, references to mysterious strangers, no named nurse who exclaimed "you are healed", no dates or names of clinics where this help occured? Basically nothing that can be corroborated? Yep, we're pretty well rehearsed at this line of arguement.

hallq · 11-14-2006, 05:50 PM

To the original poster: I wouldn't go into the mathematics. In the Craig-Ehrman debate Craig basically used it as a smoke screen to confuse both Ehrman and the audience. If you slow down and look carefully at the equation (which is hard to do in the heat of a debate), you discover that according to it, the theory with the higher prior probability will have the higher posterior probability, so long as both theories guarantee the given evidence will appear.

For your essay, I think that given the lack of modern miracles and prevelance of fraud, legend, and delusion, you can safely argue that a false report has a higher probability than a true miracle. Your main concern should be considering a variety of possible source of false reports and trying to determine which fits this situation best.

10-31-2006, 10:44 AM	#15
gstafleu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,719	The probability of a miracle is undefined. Probabilities are defined on universes of possible outcomes. If my universe consists of 75 white and 25 red marbles, I can define the P(white) as 0.75. But we don't have a universe with observed miracles from which to calculate a possibility. End of argument. (And this whole business of "the probability that God exists" is pure bogus as well.) Unless you want to be thermodynamic about it. Thermodynamically water could indeed change to wine. The probability of that is probably () less than one in N, where N is the number of particles in the universe. Look up some thermodynamics, quantum mechanics and collapse to irreversible states if you really want to pursue this line. Gerard

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-14-2006, 02:13 PM	#18
el-pepo Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 49	Miracles specific to Christianity are everywhere (I can't speak for other religions). Here's one of many from Medjugorje. http://www.visionsofjesuschrist.com/weeping360.htm Now sit back and watch the well-rehearsed arguments that roll in!

11-14-2006, 05:11 PM	#19
SpellStitchedNerd Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Issaquah, WA, USA Posts: 90	You mean the fact that the article named no doctors who decreed the leg broken and almost needing amputation, no named witness that saw the apparition as well, references to mysterious strangers, no named nurse who exclaimed "you are healed", no dates or names of clinics where this help occured? Basically nothing that can be corroborated? Yep, we're pretty well rehearsed at this line of arguement.

11-14-2006, 05:50 PM	#20
hallq Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Madison, Wisconsin Posts: 204	To the original poster: I wouldn't go into the mathematics. In the Craig-Ehrman debate Craig basically used it as a smoke screen to confuse both Ehrman and the audience. If you slow down and look carefully at the equation (which is hard to do in the heat of a debate), you discover that according to it, the theory with the higher prior probability will have the higher posterior probability, so long as both theories guarantee the given evidence will appear. For your essay, I think that given the lack of modern miracles and prevelance of fraud, legend, and delusion, you can safely argue that a false report has a higher probability than a true miracle. Your main concern should be considering a variety of possible source of false reports and trying to determine which fits this situation best.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.