You Can't Disprove a Miracle

[SteveII]

Well, you can certainly continue to insist that you're referring to probability without having a probability, or doing any math, but it's unlikely to convince anyone who wasn't already convinced before you began.   Simialrly, you can certainly continue to insists that multiplying zero by zero over zero and getting zero isn't doing math...but I think you're going to have an even harder time of convincing anyone of that.

I guess we'll have to move forward without any sort of understanding what you're talking about whatsoever.  More troubling than the above, is the bit about h and k.  You see..in an equation that you have claimed is capable of determining the probability of an event being a miracle...there is a variable that you have defined as the probability of an event being a miracle.  This value -must- be known to even -use- the equation......but that brings up an interesting question.  Why would you need the equation, if you had that value?  

Additionally, are you actually determining the value of any probability of an event being a miracle, or describing the relationships between operants?  In essence, are you proving that miracles exist or that "miracle" is a probable explanation, or merely that 1+1=2?

The description I posted with the equation: Pr(H/K&E) and Pr(H/ K) are called, respectively, the posterior and priorprobability of H. What I did not post was a line from another source that (referring to this equation) "What is now called Bayes' theorem shows how the acquisition of new knowledge impacts on the agent's degrees of belief". The equation was used to show that Humes argument against miracles was fallacious, so in that sense, it proves that the probability of a miracle can be assessed based on not only the probability of the event, but the probability of the evidence given no miracle.

Now, we could, amusingly, do some math..........I don;t know how well that;s going to work since you seem to have some sort of disagreement about what math is, but it should be able to show why your non-math is uninformative and will not necessarily lead to your conclusion.  So lets do that.  For simplicity..Ill describe just one example and leave you to work out the rest.  In the set of 1-10, we'll split it down the middle as if we were playing pool, between high and low numbers.  1-5, is low.  6-10, is high.

Low x High / Low.  1x6/5.  That's 1 with a remainder......awfully "Low", wouldn't you say?  So how did you reach the conclusion that it was "High"?

Interesting you assigned 5 to expectancy of the tumors/symptoms being gone.