The universe existing as a byproduct of God?

[GrandizerII]

SteveII,

I'm not goint to interpret rambling pages by WLC. You started lecturing about using probabilities, so make the argument, tersely, using Bayes theorem, tell us your numbers and then we discuss.

Irrational used probability as a way to know if the NT events happened and asserted that was at or near zero. That's just not true. WLC made the argument far better than I could so address his argument. I am not going to restate it with numbers because that is not the point. Simply using comparative words (such as lower and higher) are sufficient to discuss a historical event.

Not true according to whom? WLC? I don't think you personally appreciate the usefulness of Bayesian probability. The whole point is that it starts with numbers we all can agree on, and then we move forward from there. WLC went and included God's existence as a probable event in the initial probabilities, but that's no longer an honest way to use Bayesian probability because not everyone agrees God's existence is probable.

[GrandizerII]

You know what? I'm going to give this a crack just to get some Bayesian juices flowing!

Let's discuss the probability that a God that intervenes in our affairs and occasionally heals people in unambiguously supernatural ways exists. We'll call it P(G). Being reasonable, we should assign a very low initial probability value to P(G). This should be reasonable. If you believe it should be higher, then that means we have to go backwards a bit and do a different set of Bayesian calculations to see if it should. That said, let's be generous and make it a probability of 1 millionth (this is a very generous number):

P(G) = 0.000001

Now let's include the probability of at least one amputee's limb being fully and spontaneously restored to adequate length and functionality, given that such a God exists. We'll call this R. We'll give it a good probability given this particular God's existence, and rather low given such a being doesn't exist.

So P(R|G) = 0.60 and P(R|~G) = 0.000000001 (again, being generous here)

I'll use this link to avoid any errors with my calculations (hopefully this is a good calculator).

https://ludios.org/bayes/

So putting in the initial values, and knowing that we live in a world where R has not happened, we get that:

P(G|~R) = 0.0000004000002404001441 (Which is a magnitude lower than the initial P(G)).

So probability of God goes down not up.

Now if we were to have R occur, then P(G|R) would be quite high (virtually 100%):

P(G|R): 0.9983361081503096641436

And this is of course all based on my initial values (I was being generous). Perhaps it needs some major/minor tweaking here or there, and agreement by others, or perhaps I got it all wrong (correct me if so, Alex), but that's the gist of how it should be applied.

[Alex K]

Irrational,

I think you're dead on. I can't check the #s right now, but they seem to behave as I would expect from BT, absence of a healing miracle lowers P(G,..), presence of one pulls it near 1.

[SteveII]

You know what? I'm going to give this a crack just to get some Bayesian juices flowing!

Let's discuss the probability that a God that intervenes in our affairs and occasionally heals people in unambiguously supernatural ways exists. We'll call it P(G). Being reasonable, we should assign a very low initial probability value to P(G). This should be reasonable. If you believe it should be higher, then that means we have to go backwards a bit and do a different set of Bayesian calculations to see if it should. That said, let's be generous and make it a probability of 1 millionth (this is a very generous number):

P(G) = 0.000001

Now let's include the probability of at least one amputee's limb being fully and spontaneously restored to adequate length and functionality, given that such a God exists. We'll call this R. We'll give it a good probability given this particular God's existence, and rather low given such a being doesn't exist.

So P(R|G) = 0.60 and P(R|~G) = 0.000000001 (again, being generous here)

I'll use this link to avoid any errors with my calculations (hopefully this is a good calculator).

https://ludios.org/bayes/

So putting in the initial values, and knowing that we live in a world where R has not happened, we get that:

P(G|~R) = 0.0000004000002404001441 (Which is a magnitude lower than the initial P(G)).

So probability of God goes down not up.

Now if we were to have R occur, then P(G|R) would be quite high (virtually 100%):

P(G|R): 0.9983361081503096641436

And this is of course all based on my initial values (I was being generous). Perhaps it needs some major/minor tweaking here or there, and agreement by others, or perhaps I got it all wrong (correct me if so, Alex), but that's the gist of how it should be applied.

Ah, but you failed to include evidence. What if we saw with out own eyes that such a thing happened? Or perhaps a little more subtler: that the man had no limb last month when you saw him and this month he does. Your math would be the same. The probability calculus strings together the probability of all the scenarios that would account for such a thing--including what is the probability that such a thing happened had there not been a supernatural intervention.

Related to this, the second problem is that your scenario is hypothetical when we are clearly discussing historical events that have context. I posted this in another thread

When discussing Jesus' miracles, the context, that strengthen the claim, might include:

1. Timing (Jesus said something like "pick up your bed and walk"
2. Illustrating a particular point. Example Mat 9 Jesus told a man his sins were forgiven. When the religious leaders grumbled that this was blasphemy, he asked what was easier to say that your sins are forgiven or to tell him to get up an walk.
3. Reinforce teachings with some authority. Example feeding 5000, Matt 9:35
4. So that people might believe (specifically stated). Example Lazarus (John 11)
5. Reward for faith.
6. Theologically significant. example virgin birth, baptism, tearing of the veil in the temple, resurrection.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ah yes, the Historical Documents™.

[T.J.]

If a guy had no limb one month and a limb the next month I'd just conclude he got a prosthetic until he could demonstrate it was real.

1.) Nah, I'll keep my bed on the floor.
2.) Saying something is easier than lifting something that's heavy. This prove nothing.
3.) You can get enough food to feed five thousand people.
4.) People have been legally dead and brought back to life.
5.) You need a reward? How do you know the reward is even a reward?
6.) Jane the Virgin had a miracle pregnancy concept through science. That would've been impossible back then, but even if you could prove the pregnant gal didn't have sex that doesn't equate to God being real. Baptism is getting wet. You can tear a veil with your hands. I already talked about bringing people back from the dead.

This strengthen nothing.

[vorlon13]

They are evidence that they believed certain things, yes.  They aren't evidence that they're beliefs are actually true.

So then the NT is a description of what contemporary people believed to be true with respects to Jesus' life and claims. Why would they believe it to be true if in fact it was not? Many would be eyewitnesses or had access to eyewitnesses.

Conversely, we have eyewitnesses that don't believe.  Like these two dweebs:

Luke 2:41-52
41 And His parents used to go to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover.
42 And when He became twelve, they went up {there} according to the custom of the Feast;
43 and as they were returning, after spending the full number of days, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. And His parents were unaware of it,
44 but supposed Him to be in the caravan, and went a day's journey; and they {began} looking for Him among their relatives and acquaintances.
45 And when they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem, looking for Him.
46 And it came about that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them, and asking them questions.
47 And all who heard Him were amazed at His understanding and His answers.
48 And when they saw Him, they were astonished; and His mother said to Him, "Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, your father and I have been anxiously looking for you."
And He said to them, "Why is it that you were looking for me? Did you not know that I had to be [en tois tou Patros] in My father's {house?"}
50 And they did not understand the statement which He had made to them.

[T.J.]

Way to humiliate your Earth father in front of everybody, Jesus. Asshole.

[GrandizerII]

Ah, but you failed to include evidence. What if we saw with out own eyes that such a thing happened? Or perhaps a little more subtler: that the man had no limb last month when you saw him and this month he does. Your math would be the same. The probability calculus strings together the probability of all the scenarios that would account for such a thing--including what is the probability that such a thing happened had there not been a supernatural intervention.

No, the maths wouldn't be the same. The probabilities would get updated of course, and the existence of this particular god would be almost certain. But this has not happened, so we need to go with the world where R has not occurred to calculate posterior probabilities.

Related to this, the second problem is that your scenario is hypothetical when we are clearly discussing historical events that have context. I posted this in another thread

Is it merely hypothetical that no amputees have had their limbs restored to the degree I've stated? As far as you and I know, no. This is the reality thus far.

[GrandizerII]

When discussing Jesus' miracles, the context, that strengthen the claim, might include:

1. Timing (Jesus said something like "pick up your bed and walk"
2. Illustrating a particular point. Example Mat 9 Jesus told a man his sins were forgiven. When the religious leaders grumbled that this was blasphemy, he asked what was easier to say that your sins are forgiven or to tell him to get up an walk.
3. Reinforce teachings with some authority. Example feeding 5000, Matt 9:35
4. So that people might believe (specifically stated). Example Lazarus (John 11)
5. Reward for faith.
6. Theologically significant. example virgin birth, baptism, tearing of the veil in the temple, resurrection.

As for this list, let's do it. You lead the way. And we'll assess your prior values and/or calculations.