You Can't Disprove a Miracle

[robvalue]

Stories?

Wow you should read Lord of the Rings. Miracle every 5 seconds.

[Mister Agenda]

The example I gave earlier. Man born crippled walks. While not probable, there may be natural causes that can make that happen. If a man claiming to be the Son of God, tells the guy his sins are forgiven and then, after being accused of blaspheme, said, what is easier to say to a many your sins are forgiven to to tell him to take up his bed and walk. You see, the timing and context increases the probability that this was a miracle.

If there were no such thing as hoaxes or lying or Chinese whispers; it might. As it is, it's just a story that someone who wasn't an eyewitness eventually wrote down, after who knows how many retellings. Every Iron Age culture was full of such stories, which were nearly impossible to investigate in a world with ships and horses as the fastest forms of communication and travel.

[Cyberman]

You're not giving us anything we can test in any way, you're giving us anecdotes. Stories. The internet is filled with them. Do you not see the problem you're facing, separating the data from the whitenoise? No wonder you want to shift the burden of proof all the time.

[robvalue]

Don't theists feel that jarring effect when we jump from science to stories?

It's like a roundhouse kick to the face.

And it's more than a little like a kid saying, "Santa could be real daddy! You can't prove he isn't!"

[robvalue]

Even if those stories weren't lies or exaggerations, they are still, at best, eyewitness testimony.

(And we have no reason to think it was even written by eyewitnesses.)

Eyewitness accounts are not sufficient to establish supernatural causation. The reason for this should be obvious.

[SteveII]

Even if those stories weren't lies or exaggerations, they are still, at best, eyewitness testimony.

(And we have no reason to think it was even written by eyewitnesses.)

Eyewitness accounts are not sufficient to establish supernatural causation. The reason for this should be obvious.

Using the same example above, are eyewitness accounts of the event, timing, and context sufficient to increase the probability of an event having a supernatural cause versus a natural one?

[The Grand Nudger]

Not unless you're -finally- ready to do some math..........

[robvalue]

Still waiting to hear when I asserted supernatural events cannot happen.

No, they are not. Eyewitness accounts are worthless, scientifically speaking. At best they can act as a starting point for investigation.

[Angrboda]

Even if those stories weren't lies or exaggerations, they are still, at best, eyewitness testimony.

(And we have no reason to think it was even written by eyewitnesses.)

Eyewitness accounts are not sufficient to establish supernatural causation. The reason for this should be obvious.

Using the same example above, are eyewitness accounts of the event, timing, and context sufficient to increase the probability of an event having a supernatural cause versus a natural one?

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.

[Divinity]

You can't disprove shit to people who want to believe. Wouldn't matter one fucking bit if you had all the evidence in the goddamn world.