You Can't Disprove a Miracle

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't have to prove any such thing, but there you go again.  I'm doing math (which you should be doing).  Zero times zero over zero is zero.  Agreed? Is this equation only compelling to you when you think it yields the probability you desire?

Burden shifting noted, ignored yet again. Please, take your time to consider those questions I asked. Responding with these attempts to shirk the load will -never- be an answer to them.

[SteveII]

I don't have to prove any such thing, but there you go again.  I'm doing math.  Zero times zero plus zero minus zero over zero is zero.  Agreed?

No, you're not doing math. You are assigning zeros to probabilities because you believe that is what they are. What is the basis for that belief?

[The Grand Nudger]

Gee.....you seem to have identified a problem with your use of the equation, in your haphazard high/low scheme... haven't you?  I am, however, doing math. Zero, times zero....over zero...equals zero. It just didn't end with "therefore miracle"...so you're understandably salty about that. Could have been avoided, you had ample opportunity.

Now, is this enough for you to acknowledge that you do not -possess- an argument from probability,or would you like to further investigate the problems that would remain if you could actually manage to overcome that obstacle?

[Cyberman]

It's not our job to prove something is not a miracle. It's your job to demonstrate that it is. The very fact that you're quibbling over definitions and the burden of proof shows that on some level you recognise the dearth of miracles available to examine.

So, are you not taking the positive position that miracles do not exist--you are just saying that there is no evidence for them.

No, I take the position that I will not accept that miracles do occur until sufficient evidence is presented to justify accepting them. I won't say there is no evidence - anything you want to present is evidence - I merely say that thus far what little has been offered as evidence doesn't actually evidence the thing it's meant to.

Of course if you're going to dilute the definition of "miracle" to something like "a really improbable event", then fine; miracles are real. But then the question arises: "so what?" Winning the lottery is a miracle now? What a depressingly low standard.

Others say there is evidence for them.

Great - let's see if it stands up to scrutiny.

We look at each one and assign probability and when we do that, then is seems likely that miracles have happened.

Even if you could assign numerical values to these things, and that is one hell of an 'if', what is the cutoff point between an unlikely event and a miracle? And why?

I think one of your problems is frequency. You can't use frequency as a probability theory. Scientist are looking for infrequent events all the time. Secondly, we are not talking about random events--we are talking about an event caused by a supernatural free agent. In such a case, an event might be caused precisely because it is infrequent.

I think you need a healthy dose of Occam's Razor, to be honest. Oh, and please stop strawmanning me.

[Cyberman]

My brother-in-law when a child had a brain tumor. Causing seizureres.  In hospital for surgery. New CT scan taken to map surgery. No tumor. Seizures stopped. Father-in-law was a minister and brother-in-law had literally hundreds of people praying.

                              Pr(H/K) x Pr(E/H&K) 
 Pr(H/E&K) =   ----------------------------------------
                                      Pr(E/K) 

It is helpful to think of H as the hypothesis at issue, K as the background knowledge, and E as the new evidence. Pr(H/K&E) and Pr(H/ K) are called, respectively, the posterior and priorprobability of H. Pr(E/ H&K) is called the likelihood of H; it is a measure of how well H explains E. Pr(E/K) is variously called the prior likelihood or the expectancy of E; it is a measure of how surprising the new evidence E is. 

(H) A miracle removed tumor (hypothesis)
(K) Tumors do not disappear between CT scans in a matter of weeks (background knowledge)
(E) Tumor gone. Symptoms gone (evidence)

The probability of H given K (LOW) multiplied by how well H explains E (HIGH)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Expectancy of E (LOW)

Probability is high that this was a miracle.

Where is Madeleine McCann?

That's not a frivolous question, now that you've raised the subject of prayer.

Little Madeleine famously disappeared from her parents' hotel room in Portugal almost nine years ago. Her parents spent a great deal of time visiting prayer groups around the world, even having audiences with the then-Pope, yet apart from a handful of spurious sightings she has never been seen again, and is likely dead. So why is this? Why have the prayers of all these thousands of fervent faithful still not been answered? If this god can heal a disease known for periodic remission, why is this little girl - who would be 12 by now - still missing?

[SteveII]

Gee.....you seem to have identified a problem with your use of the equation, in your haphazard high/low scheme... haven't you?   I am, however, doing math.  Zero, times zero....over zero...equals zero.  It just didn't end with "therefore miracle"...so you're understandably salty about that.  Could have been avoided, you had ample opportunity.

Now, is this enough for you to acknowledge that you do not -possess- an argument from probability,or would you like to further investigate the problems that would remain if you could actually manage to overcome that obstacle?

I do not concede anything. You are not doing math. Rather than assigning a low probability to a supernatural event, you assign zero--making a philosophical statement that there are only natural causes--something you cannot prove. What probability theorists came to realize is that you must not only consider how probable the event is relative to our background knowledge of the world, but you must also consider how probable would the evidence be if the event had not occurred? The formula serves to compare those two things.

[SteveII]

Where is Madeleine McCann?

That's not a frivolous question, now that you've raised the subject of prayer.

Little Madeleine famously disappeared from her parents' hotel room in Portugal almost nine years ago. Her parents spent a great deal of time visiting prayer groups around the world, even having audiences with the then-Pope, yet apart from a handful of spurious sightings she has never been seen again, and is likely dead. So why is this? Why have the prayers of all these thousands of fervent faithful still not been answered? If this god can heal a disease known for periodic remission, why is this little girl - who would be 12 by now - still missing?

The topic is can/do miracles happen--not why didn't one happen in a particular case. In fact, it would be a miracle to know the specifics of why--since that too would be specific knowledge from a supernatural source.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.   Similarly, you can certainly continue to insist 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, the value of the conclusion...there is a variable that you have defined as the probability of a miracle.  This value -must- be known to even -use- the equation as you've presented it......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? This question is only relevant, ofc, if you ever get around to actually doing the math you claim to have done, that you claim supports your conclusion.

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"?

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

I assigned my numbers based upon possible values in a high low scheme.  If that's insufficient, you didn't seem to think so when you offered it, when I mentioned that it might be. 

You could have assigned the values to your variables yourself, of course.  I implored you to do so many times.  You could have done so with your last response.  Math seems to be the only thing you -aren't- willing to do...which is strange, because you did claim to have some means to determine the probability that "x" is a miracle..by reference to mathematical concepts, by reference to an equation.  Now, if you're proposing that the problems demonstrated to you, in your handling of this equation, are due to omitting some necessary other source, some piece of the puzzle, essentially, your own incompetence.... then I doubt that anything you're willing or capable of bringing forward would salvage your claim at this point, of showing us how you've determined your probabilities.  

I'm open to being wrong on that count, so...let's see your work, finally?

Thing is, if this equation wasn't actually designed to show the probability that x is a miracle..is it any wonder that it fails to do so? If I used an equation designed to determine how many marbles were in a jar, to determine the color of the sky.....I wouldn't expect success. If that is the case, ofc, then seeing as how we still don't have any math from you, and the equation you offered can't provide what you claimed (and it can't...because of that little h/k issue)...and doesn't even lead necessarily to the conclusion you claimed when you do use it..........in what sense do you have an argument at all....and is your concession really necessary to determine that you don't?

I just thought you might appreciate the chance to display a little integrity, for once...in this thread. I guess I should have known better considering the way you treated every other opportunity extended?