The universe existing as a byproduct of God?

[The Grand Nudger]

Contemporary to what?  Why do people believe things contrary to fact today?  What eyewitnesses, to what?

A mountain of bad arguments won't yield a single good one, and the quality of these arguments isn't increased through repetition.

[FatAndFaithless]

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.

That statement could be literally applied to any description of any holy figure of any religion.

[Alex K]

Well, since Bayes' theorem (or Bayesian probability) was brought up very recently in another thread, perhaps the key is in the prior probabilities. In the absence of information ascertaining or substantially improving the likelihood of supernatural events, then the probability of any supernatural event is extremely low, very close to zero.

That's simply not true. An event is not simply the probability of A in respects to B or Pr(A/B). Modern probability calculus indicates that we need to consider the background information and the probability that A would happen if not B (and other such comparisons). So the calculation is really Pr(A/B&E) where E stands for various evidences and background information. 

For example, what is the probability that the crippled man would have walked when commanded to "rise, take up your bed and walk" if a miracle had not happened? Probability goes way up when you look at it properly.

What Irrational says is correct. You just said some disconnected stuff and vaguely claim that the probability is way higher if one does it properly?
Be my guest! Give us an example calculation applying BT with numbers you find plausible, and then we'll talk.

[LastPoet]

That probability nonsense could get a pass on church or amongst believers, where it is not subject of scrutiny. Believers would just nod even if they don't understand what was said.

[The Grand Nudger]

They'll do more than that, they'll actually argue against math when it doesn't yield what they wish for, and then logic when they realize that it can't.

Then they'll wait a few weeks.......and try to foist it off on someone else.

[SteveII]

That's simply not true. An event is not simply the probability of A in respects to B or Pr(A/B). Modern probability calculus indicates that we need to consider the background information and the probability that A would happen if not B (and other such comparisons). So the calculation is really Pr(A/B&E) where E stands for various evidences and background information. 

For example, what is the probability that the crippled man would have walked when commanded to "rise, take up your bed and walk" if a miracle had not happened? Probability goes way up when you look at it properly.

To remove ambiguity, have the letters represent certain events so we can examine what exactly you're arguing. What does A stand for in this case? And what do B and E stand for exactly?

And also, how the hell would the probability of a crippled man standing up and walking when requested to do so go way up if a miracle had not taken place? Do you mean it'll become no longer extremely low probability? Perhaps we'll get the answer when you clarify what you're arguing exactly.

I simple do not have the time to reword something and post it here. If you really want to know, click the second link. 

John Earman wrote a book on this as it related to miracles. 
http://www.amazon.com/Humes-Abject-Failu...0195127382

I found out about it from the debate between Bart Ehrman and WLC. If you want to know the whole argument, click on WLC First Rebuttal. 
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-there-...#section_3

[SteveII]

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.

That statement could be literally applied to any description of any holy figure of any religion.

Name another religion where this set of facts applies. 

1. Public miracles (big ones - on the scale of resurrections - the kind that prove the existence of God - and backs up claim of begin sent from God). 
2. people believed
3. then people wrote about it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Name one that it -doesn't- apply to, and we're using the word "fact" awful loosely?  But who cares if it were unique, because being unique doesn't have the ability to turn something into nonfiction. There's only one Pinocchio, but that doesn't make him a real boy any better than wishing on a star would.

I can see why a believer would have a different set of "facts" in mind, but I've never understood why they use those "facts" in non-informative ways.

[GrandizerII]

To remove ambiguity, have the letters represent certain events so we can examine what exactly you're arguing. What does A stand for in this case? And what do B and E stand for exactly?

And also, how the hell would the probability of a crippled man standing up and walking when requested to do so go way up if a miracle had not taken place? Do you mean it'll become no longer extremely low probability? Perhaps we'll get the answer when you clarify what you're arguing exactly.

I simple do not have the time to reword something and post it here. If you really want to know, click the second link. 

John Earman wrote a book on this as it related to miracles. 
http://www.amazon.com/Humes-Abject-Failu...0195127382

I found out about it from the debate between Bart Ehrman and WLC. If you want to know the whole argument, click on WLC First Rebuttal. 
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-there-...#section_3

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?

[The Grand Nudger]

Smart Words™ from a Smart Man™, that's why.  At least WLC knows his brand, even if his fans don't.