The universe existing as a byproduct of God?

[SteveII]

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?

Because we are not talking about assigning actual numbers but rather comparing two approaches to historical analysis. The correct approach yields a higher probability than Ehrman's approach. From the link:

And we can see this by looking at the form of the probability calculus. It has the form of

because the numerator is reproduced in the denominator. Now notice that as Y tends toward zero, the value of this ratio tends toward 1, which in probability theory means absolute certainty. So what is really crucial here is the probability of Y, which represents the intrinsic probability and explanatory power of his naturalistic alternatives to Jesus’ resurrection. So Dr. Ehrman can’t just ignore these or present fanciful hypotheses. In order to explain that the resurrection is improbable, he needs not only to tear down all the evidence for the resurrection, but he needs to erect a positive case of his own in favor of some naturalistic alternatives.

But that’s not all. Dr. Ehrman just assumes that the probability of the resurrection on our background knowledge [Pr(R/B)] is very low. But here, I think, he’s confused. What, after all, is the resurrection hypothesis? It’s the hypothesis that Jesus rose supernaturally from the dead. It is not the hypothesis that Jesus rose naturally from the dead. That Jesus rose naturally from the dead is fantastically improbable. But I see no reason whatsoever to think that it is improbable that God raised Jesus from the dead.

In order to show that that hypothesis is improbable, you’d have to show that God’s existence is improbable. But Dr. Ehrman says that the historian cannot say anything about God. Therefore, he cannot say that God’s existence is improbable. But if he can’t say that, neither can he say that the resurrection of Jesus is improbable. So Dr. Ehrman’s position is literally self-refuting.

But it gets even worse. There’s another version of Dr. Ehrman’s objection which is even more obviously fallacious than Ehrman’s Egregious Error. I call it “Bart’s Blunder.”

Bart’s Blunder

• “Since historians can establish only what probably happened in the past, they cannot show that miracles happened, since this would involve a contradiction—that the most improbable event is the most probable.”
(The New Testament: A Historical Introduction, p. 229)

• Confuses Pr (R/ B & E) with Pr (R/B)

Here it is:
“Since historians can establish only what probably happened in the past, they cannot show that miracles happened, since this would involve a contradiction—that the most improbable event is the most probable.”

In truth, there’s no contradiction here at all because we’re talking about two different probabilities: the probability of the resurrection on the background knowledge and the evidence [Pr(R/B&E)] versus the probability of the resurrection on the background knowledge alone [Pr(R/B)]. It’s not at all surprising that the first may be very high and the second might be very low. There’s no contradiction at all. In sum, Dr. Ehrman’s fundamental argument against the resurrection hypothesis is demonstrably fallacious.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-there-...z4CttJc6df

[GrandizerII]

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?

Because we are not talking about assigning actual numbers but rather comparing two approaches to historical analysis. The correct approach yields a higher probability than Ehrman's approach. From the link:

And we can see this by looking at the form of the probability calculus. It has the form of

because the numerator is reproduced in the denominator. Now notice that as Y tends toward zero, the value of this ratio tends toward 1, which in probability theory means absolute certainty. So what is really crucial here is the probability of Y, which represents the intrinsic probability and explanatory power of his naturalistic alternatives to Jesus’ resurrection. So Dr. Ehrman can’t just ignore these or present fanciful hypotheses. In order to explain that the resurrection is improbable, he needs not only to tear down all the evidence for the resurrection, but he needs to erect a positive case of his own in favor of some naturalistic alternatives.

But that’s not all. Dr. Ehrman just assumes that the probability of the resurrection on our background knowledge [Pr(R/B)] is very low. But here, I think, he’s confused. What, after all, is the resurrection hypothesis? It’s the hypothesis that Jesus rose supernaturally from the dead. It is not the hypothesis that Jesus rose naturally from the dead. That Jesus rose naturally from the dead is fantastically improbable. But I see no reason whatsoever to think that it is improbable that God raised Jesus from the dead.

In order to show that that hypothesis is improbable, you’d have to show that God’s existence is improbable. But Dr. Ehrman says that the historian cannot say anything about God. Therefore, he cannot say that God’s existence is improbable. But if he can’t say that, neither can he say that the resurrection of Jesus is improbable. So Dr. Ehrman’s position is literally self-refuting.

But it gets even worse. There’s another version of Dr. Ehrman’s objection which is even more obviously fallacious than Ehrman’s Egregious Error. I call it “Bart’s Blunder.”

Bart’s Blunder

• “Since historians can establish only what probably happened in the past, they cannot show that miracles happened, since this would involve a contradiction—that the most improbable event is the most probable.”
(The New Testament: A Historical Introduction, p. 229)

• Confuses Pr (R/ B & E) with Pr (R/B)

Here it is:
“Since historians can establish only what probably happened in the past, they cannot show that miracles happened, since this would involve a contradiction—that the most improbable event is the most probable.”

In truth, there’s no contradiction here at all because we’re talking about two different probabilities: the probability of the resurrection on the background knowledge and the evidence [Pr(R/B&E)] versus the probability of the resurrection on the background knowledge alone [Pr(R/B)]. It’s not at all surprising that the first may be very high and the second might be very low. There’s no contradiction at all. In sum, Dr. Ehrman’s fundamental argument against the resurrection hypothesis is demonstrably fallacious.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-there-...z4CttJc6df

Yeah, I read that. And he's playing with words like the usual WLC that he is, lol.

It's clear WLC wasn't committed to agreeing on the prior probabilities as can be noted by him disagreeing with P(R|B) being too low. But that's the really reasonable thing to accept before any other factor comes into play. And why is there not solely a P ( R ) exactly? Would WLC agree that P ( R ) is too low?

[Alex K]

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.

[Whateverist]

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 ..

Because gullible, aka pre-existing mindset?

[KevinM1]

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.

Many people believed the earth was flat and that illness was caused by demons and curses.  Why did they believe that to be true?

C'mon Steve, you're smarter than this.

[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.

Many people believed the earth was flat and that illness was caused by demons and curses.  Why did they believe that to be true?

C'mon Steve, you're smarter than this.

Sure, why not believe the earth is flat when you live a little section of the globe and lack the ability and the tools to find out. Were people irrational to believe such a thing? No.

I'm sure some people thought that demons and curses were the cause of problems. Remote tribes still believe that. Was that the common understanding of say the first century Roman empire? I don't think so.

You know what was the common understanding of the first century Roman empire? 
1) people did not line up and get healed from all manner of very common maladies (blind, crippled, leprosy, etc.); 
2) people did not have power over the elements (walk on water, water into wine, weather, etc.); and
3) people did not have power over death.

So when they saw such things:

A) they believed them to be true, 
B) upon hearing the message of the one performing such things, they believed his claims to be true (that Jesus was the messiah) and 
C) this is an important point, they did not understand the complete picture until Jesus rose from the dead. 

I'm curious, since you think the first century Christians' beliefs were not true, what is your theory of why they believed they way they did even before the NT began to be written?

[T.J.]

Once you remove the need for evidence any idea, no matter how insane, becomes equally as valid because there's nothing to validate one belief over another.

For example, you can say a circle has no sides and infinite sides, making it a contradictory. There's no proof for this and posting a picture of a circle will get you nowhere.

But, if we accept the circle has infinite sides, then who's to say the sides of all the other shapes don't fit into this new found infinity and therefore every shape is a circle, or the circle is within the shape, thus changing everything we now know about shapes forever.

Without the need for evidence that holds up under scrutiny what I just pulled out of my ass is every bit as valid as God. And if God is more valid because more people believe or there were books written about it, then all that remains for the circle to be equally valid is to make a bunch of people believe it and write a bunch of books about it, which they likely would've been far more willing to believe if someone came up with this back in the Iron Age and did just that.

Do you see the problem?

[SteveII]

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

The numbers aren't the point in an argument from probabilities?  News to me. Now, this lower and higher business has already been discussed as well, at length, and you didn't seem satisfied with the algebra either. If you like I could repost the spread of solutions using low/high and why they end up being what they are, regardless of any real number contained in either set, like I did last time?

Whats the point in all of this Steve, since you;re convinced that there is one, why have this discussion again? Math isn't the kind of subject where anyone can agree to disagree. You were wrong then, you're wrong now, and it isn't debatable.

[SteveII]

Once you remove the need for evidence any idea, no matter how insane, becomes equally as valid because there's nothing to validate one belief over another.

For example, you can say a circle has no sides and infinite sides, making it a contradictory. There's no proof for this and posting a picture of a circle will get you nowhere.

But, if we accept the circle has infinite sides, then who's to say the sides of all the other shapes don't fit into this new found infinity and therefore every shape is a circle, or the circle is within the shape, thus changing everything we now know about shapes forever.

Without the need for evidence that holds up under scrutiny what I just pulled out of my ass is every bit as valid as God. And if God is more valid because more people believe or there were books written about it, then all that remains for the circle to be equally valid is to make a bunch of people believe it and write a bunch of books about it, which they likely would've been far more willing to believe if someone came up with this back in the Iron Age and did just that.

Do you see the problem?

You have already admitted to being fine with your circular reasoning. Where would I start with someone who does not want/need to be logical. In case it went over your head, here it is again:


1. There is no evidence for God (i.e. supernatural events)
2. The NT does not count because of supernatural events
3. Therefore there is no evidence for God.