You Can't Disprove a Miracle

[SteveII]

There you go with the burden shift.  It doesn't -matter- what the probability of a miracle is or what I believe it to be.  That's the whole point of the equation as you've presented it, is it not, to determine that number?  The equation cannot determine it so long as it contains a variable that -you- have defined as the probability of an event being miraculous.  

You are the problem, your use...your insistence, your definitions.   I've already commented on this as well.  If your response is to tell me to go look it up elsewhere because -you- fucked it up..well, no shit...

that's what I've been saying for pages...

No. The equation does not simply compute the probability of a miracle. It computes an event's probability based on the probability of evidence. The result is a number you can compare to other hypotheses to ascertain the relative strength of the evidence. No variables are repeated nor do any have similar definitions. The / = given is a qualifier. 

                    P(E/H) x P(H)
P(H/E) = ------------------------------
                          P(E)

H = Hypothesis, man was healed by Jesus
E = man walks, including timing and context

P(H/E) - probability of H given E
P(E/H) - probability of E given the hypothesis that Jesus can heal = .90
P(H) - probability that Jesus can heal cripple before E was observed = .01
P(E) - likelihood that E happened without H (call it "natural causes") = .05

             .9 x .01
18% = ----------------
               .05