You Can't Disprove a Miracle

[robvalue]

Steve. I don't mean this to be insulting, I say this out of genuine concern before I leave the discussion.

You're a smart guy. It makes me sad to see you twisting science, mathematic and logic just to try and convince yourself that the events in a specific storybook are possible.

But you don't believe the book is real due to any of this. I can say that much with near certainty. Because the conclusion that you want, that isn't even possible to reach here, doesn't go 1% towards your final goal of having credible reason to believe the book is real.

I think it's a shame to see you wasting all this mental effort to make reality fit into a story book.

I shall leave you alone now.

[SteveII]

1) No matter how many time you guys repeat "argument from ignorance", it still won't be so. An argument from ignorance would be me asserting miracles happen because you can't prove they don't. I am not doing that. I am showing that logically, supernatural causes are possible and mathematically can be weighed against an event occurring as a result of natural causes.

2) Some have tried to circumvent the discussion by claiming supernatural causes do not exist--to which I replied is a positive assertion and will have to be proved.

Note the distinction between the two. Furthermore, there is nothing logically wrong with inferring some supernatural entity from evidence of supernatural causation.

[Cyberman]

Note also that some of us have asked you repeatedly to demonstrate your case beyond hypothetical mathematical jiggery pokery. That you understand the burden of proof is refreshing.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're doing no such thing Steve, you're referring to an equation which assumes a probability for the miraculous and then solves, purportedly, for the probability of the miraculous.  

If I told you that I could show how many marbles were left in a jar by reference to an equation that contained within it a variable that was defined as the number of marbles left in a jar...then the equation isn't showing me how many marbles are left in the jar.

I thought I'd made that pretty clear before, but if you're having trouble understanding, speak up.

[SteveII]

Steve. I don't mean this to be insulting, I say this out of genuine concern before I leave the discussion.

You're a smart guy. It makes me sad to see you twisting science, mathematic and logic just to try and convince yourself that the events in a specific storybook are possible.

But you don't believe the book is real due to any of this. I can say that much with near certainty. Because the conclusion that you want, that isn't even possible to reach here, doesn't go 1% towards your final goal of having credible reason to believe the book is real.

I think it's a shame to see you wasting all this mental effort to make reality fit into a story book.

I shall leave you alone now.

Perhaps you will read this reply.

I come here once in a while to exercise my brain--not to convince myself of anything. 

No, I do not believe because of these arguments or any of the other standard logical arguments. While I do not think I am twisting anything, I can see why you think that. I present an argument in support of x (not just this subject). Objections are made. I point out nuances that elicit various reactions (some more colorful than others). I adapt my approach some to try to make my point again. My points makes sense defending from a Christian worldview. Very likely not convincing anyone from an atheist position. The atheist, by definition, has significantly less options that he/she can consider.

[The Grand Nudger]

This argument shouldn't convince anyone who -does- believe in miracles, because believing or not believing in miracles isn't the problem.

[SteveII]

You're doing no such thing Steve, you're referring to an equation which assumes a probability for the miraculous and then solves, purportedly, for the probability of the miraculous.  

If I told you that I could show how many marbles were left in a jar by reference to an equation that contained within it a variable that was defined as the number of marbles left in a jar...then the equation isn't showing me how many marbles are left in the jar.

I thought I'd made that pretty clear before, but if you're having trouble understanding, speak up.

Then you don't understand the theorem. Read the link-- it has better descriptions than earlier. This has been around for 250 years. 

If you are still banging on the "miracles have a zero probability" drum, then you tell me why.

[The Grand Nudger]

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...

[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

[The Grand Nudger]

No amount of re-posting it will make it do what it cannot.  No amount of claiming that it can, will change that it cannot.  I'm starting to think you're holding it up like a shield, which is another thing it's poorly suited for.

Do you understand why an equation cannot claim to establish the probability of x if the probability of x is necessary to the equation?

I find it amusing that starting out with a probability approaching unity for the miraculous, 90%... misusing the math above leaves us with only 18% remaining. Less certain than when we began. Surely the hope, for you, is that it would go in the other direction?