You Can't Disprove a Miracle

[Mister Agenda]

You're still arguing that low probability events equal miracles.  No they don't.  Low probability events equal low probability events.  The probability cannot demonstrate that it has a supernatural cause, only evidence of an actual supernatural cause can do that.  Eyewitness accounts to unexplained events, even if held to be reliable, even given certain context, do not show the supernatural.

Click here for a Wikipedia article on Bayesian inference and probability theory.  Probability theory says that you not just assess the probability of an event and make your conclusion, but you must update that probability given any new evidence, information or conditions (timing, context, etc.). 

"The posterior probability of a hypothesis is determined by a combination of the inherent likeliness of a hypothesis (the prior) and the compatibility of the observed evidence with the hypothesis (the likelihood)."

You can run the formula for each hypothesis (H) and compare.Let's do the crippled man:

                    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(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

Bayesian logic also tells us to use what we already know to evaluate the probability of a claim being true and evaluate the quality of evidence that would be sufficient to overcome a claim that contradicts what we already know.

If I say I tied my shoes this morning, you should believe me, or at least not make an argument out of it. You know that shoes exist. You know that shoelaces exist. You know that tying shoes is possible. Lots of people tie shoes. I have nothing to gain by lying about it. You have nothing to lose by believing me.

If I say I resurrected a woman who had been dead for three days this morning, the calculation is completely different, and having an eyewitness doesn't improve it much. We don't know that the woman was really dead. We don't know that bringing someone back from the dead past clinical death is possible. We do know it would involve undoing three days of decomposition, which would be the most complicated task humankind has ever undertaken. We don't know that weird powers that would let someone do this exist or if they are even possible. If I can get people to do this (believe my claim), I have a great future as a cult leader (so I have a lot to gain). If you believe it and it's not true, you've followed a false miracle. We do know that people will lie for attention and we do know people can be delusional.

My claim about resurrecting the dead woman needs a little more than a dude who can vouch for me. before it becomes reasonable to accept it as true