The universe existing as a byproduct of God?

[GrandizerII]

Let's go with the second link then.

I see the formula, but where's the maths? WLC apparently didn't assign prior probability values and didn't do any calculations, which is really confusing because what's the point of talking about Bayesian probability in a debate if there are no calculations made?

Because we are not talking about assigning actual numbers but rather comparing two approaches to historical analysis. The correct approach yields a higher probability than Ehrman's approach. From the link:

And we can see this by looking at the form of the probability calculus. It has the form of

because the numerator is reproduced in the denominator. Now notice that as Y tends toward zero, the value of this ratio tends toward 1, which in probability theory means absolute certainty. So what is really crucial here is the probability of Y, which represents the intrinsic probability and explanatory power of his naturalistic alternatives to Jesus’ resurrection. So Dr. Ehrman can’t just ignore these or present fanciful hypotheses. In order to explain that the resurrection is improbable, he needs not only to tear down all the evidence for the resurrection, but he needs to erect a positive case of his own in favor of some naturalistic alternatives.

But that’s not all. Dr. Ehrman just assumes that the probability of the resurrection on our background knowledge [Pr(R/B)] is very low. But here, I think, he’s confused. What, after all, is the resurrection hypothesis? It’s the hypothesis that Jesus rose supernaturally from the dead. It is not the hypothesis that Jesus rose naturally from the dead. That Jesus rose naturally from the dead is fantastically improbable. But I see no reason whatsoever to think that it is improbable that God raised Jesus from the dead.

In order to show that that hypothesis is improbable, you’d have to show that God’s existence is improbable. But Dr. Ehrman says that the historian cannot say anything about God. Therefore, he cannot say that God’s existence is improbable. But if he can’t say that, neither can he say that the resurrection of Jesus is improbable. So Dr. Ehrman’s position is literally self-refuting.

But it gets even worse. There’s another version of Dr. Ehrman’s objection which is even more obviously fallacious than Ehrman’s Egregious Error. I call it “Bart’s Blunder.”

Bart’s Blunder

• “Since historians can establish only what probably happened in the past, they cannot show that miracles happened, since this would involve a contradiction—that the most improbable event is the most probable.”
(The New Testament: A Historical Introduction, p. 229)

• Confuses Pr (R/ B & E) with Pr (R/B)

Here it is:
“Since historians can establish only what probably happened in the past, they cannot show that miracles happened, since this would involve a contradiction—that the most improbable event is the most probable.”

In truth, there’s no contradiction here at all because we’re talking about two different probabilities: the probability of the resurrection on the background knowledge and the evidence [Pr(R/B&E)] versus the probability of the resurrection on the background knowledge alone [Pr(R/B)]. It’s not at all surprising that the first may be very high and the second might be very low. There’s no contradiction at all. In sum, Dr. Ehrman’s fundamental argument against the resurrection hypothesis is demonstrably fallacious.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-there-...z4CttJc6df

Yeah, I read that. And he's playing with words like the usual WLC that he is, lol.

It's clear WLC wasn't committed to agreeing on the prior probabilities as can be noted by him disagreeing with P(R|B) being too low. But that's the really reasonable thing to accept before any other factor comes into play. And why is there not solely a P ( R ) exactly? Would WLC agree that P ( R ) is too low?