Testing a Hypothesis about the Supernatural

[Rhondazvous]

What is there to test?

Jesus said He would return during the lives of those around during His time.

2000 years later, they've ALL died off and still no Jesus.

Jesus made the prediction and failed to fulfill it.

Ah, but there's still the wandering Jew. So there's your test. $1 million to the man who proves he is the wandering Jew. Of course, it'll take another two thousand years for me to pay him, but he's got time.

[SteveII]

You can observe the effects in the natural world. The definition clearly states "attributed to". That is another way of saying "cause".

Therefore, you can test the effects in the natural world as well.

Test away. Never said you couldn't. In fact, I said earlier that you can and should. 

You did not connect your first sentence to your second with anything resembling a reason. What you did was infer that God's purpose was to heal people and so we should also see this other type of "healing" - regrowing limbs. But your inference is wrong. God's purpose is not to heal people for the sake of healing people. These are not miracles "addressed to the world" but rather personal events that in contrast to the NT events, are small, for purposes that are not apparent to the everyone, and only have narrow (perhaps only personal) significance. Additionally, God could extend someone's life for a reason that might not be apparent for a hundred years (the butterfly effect). Under this understanding of "healing miracles", it is definitely not "pretty intuitive to argue that the growing of limbs spontaneously should also happen."

I don't think it matters much what the purpose of these miracles are. If you accept that healing miracles still occur to this day (for whatever purposes), then why is it we never hear about amputees growing limbs spontaneously? Instead, it's always miracles that involve healing via suggestibility (or disorders/illnesses that we aren't sure they ever had in the first place or similar such things). We never visibly see something really remarkable that we may as well start considering the existence of the supernatural. It's pretty clear to me why that is.

You said: "It doesn't matter what the purpose of these miracles are." That is the same as "I don't want to understand your point because I have one to make." Guess what, your understanding of what Christians believe is about an inch deep. That result is thing like "pretty intuitive to argue that the growing of limbs spontaneously should also happen." Regarding your last point, you mean YOU have never seen something really remarkable. There a millions of testimonies of those who have. 

Bayesian reasoning is probabilistic FTR. It's not meant to yield 100% deductive arguments.

It's actually used as part of an inductive argument, which by definition is an probabilistic argument. 

---

Okay, but context is important. I said earlier that when discussing Jesus' miracles, the context that strengthens the claim might include:

1. Timing
2. Illustrating a particular point. 
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.

So let's stick with the example I have above. So as not to get sidetracked on a debate about the NT, let's just say for the sake of this discussion you were present and you knew the man to be paralyzed. 

Luke 5:17 On one of the days while Jesus was teaching, some proud religious law-keepers and teachers of the Law were sitting by Him. They had come from every town in the countries of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem. The power of the Lord was there to heal them. 18 Some men took a man who was not able to move his body to Jesus. He was carried on a bed. They looked for a way to take the man into the house where Jesus was. 19 But they could not find a way to take him in because of so many people. They made a hole in the roof over where Jesus stood. Then they let the bed with the sick man on it down before Jesus. 20 When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the man, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.”

21 The teachers of the Law and the proud religious law-keepers thought to themselves, “Who is this Man Who speaks as if He is God? Who can forgive sins but God only?” 22 Jesus knew what they were thinking. He said to them, “Why do you think this way in your hearts? 23 Which is easier to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or, ‘Get up and walk’?

24 “So that you may know the Son of Man has the right and the power on earth to forgive sins,” He said to the man who could not move his body, “I say to you, get up. Take your bed and go to your home.” 25 At once the sick man got up in front of them. He took his bed and went to his home thanking God. 26 All those who were there were surprised and gave thanks to God, saying, “We have seen very special things today.”

Present in the series of events is 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. That's a lot of context. 

Now, using Bayes Theorem and especially Bayesian Inference, we can examine the probability of seeing the paralyzed man walk given the overall context. 



R = A Miracle Having Happened (the man walks due to supernatural causes)
B = Background information (the supernatural exists)
E = Evidence (paralyzed man walking in the context of being commanded to for the reasons mentioned)

The way you read this is 
Pr="The probability of" 
| = "given"
& = "and"

So the probability of a Miracle Having Happened given the Evidence and The Supernatural Exists OVER the probability of a Miracle Having NOT Happened  given the Evidence and The Supernatural Exists
=
The probability of Miracle Having Happened given The Supernatural Exists OVER the probability of Miracle Having NOT Happened given the The Supernatural Exists
X 
The probability of seeing the Evidence given a Miracle Having Happened and The Supernatural Exists OVER the probability of seeing the Evidence given a Miracle NOT Having Happened and The Supernatural Exists

Notice this last part of the equation. It is the probability of seeing the evidence given no miracle, no supernatural. A low value here significantly increase the overall probability of a miracle having happened.

Uh, oh. Big problem here. We don't observe a world in which these events you speak of actually occur. These are all contained in the Bible, but not necessarily in the real world. So your incredibly naive Bayesian reasoning here can be dismissed.

Predictable pivot. Your discussion skills are amazing. Regardless, I have hundreds of reasons to believe the NT is true. You have no evidence that my beliefs are not true.

[The Grand Nudger]

Come now, Steve..not even you could believe every jot and tittle?

[SteveII]

I'm just chuckling at how simplistic this all is.

If I think Rob has a dog, but find no evidence of a dog, that doesn't mean he must therefore have a cat.  Several other possibilities exist, including him actually owning a dog and being particular about hiding evidence for it.

So, if a natural event doesn't have a yet known natural cause, that doesn't mean the cause must be the supernatural.  Several other possibilities exist, including a yet undiscovered natural cause for that event.

There's no need for equations or anything, just a basic grasp of what a very obvious fallacy is.

For your point to mean anything, you need to discuss the supernatural in vague terms. However, you have just erected a straw man because that is not how people who believe in the supernatural consider this question AT ALL.

Look at the example above. If Jesus did do this thing in the context described, are you still going to hide behind "undiscovered natural causes?" No, only an idiot would think that. So what you have to say is that these events did not exist. Notice you are not really making the same argument you claim to be.

[The Grand Nudger]

If jesus did any of the shit in magic book..then the supernatural was observed?  If jesus is god..then people can literally observe god?

Pages worth of assertions to the contrary devastated by your own beliefs.

Carry on.

[SteveII]

Just chuckling like mad at the argument ...

A:You have no evidence
S: Looks! Maths! Scary symbols! Probability and Bayes theorem you'll have accept me on! Not at all garbage-in-garbage-out!
A: You have no evidence.
S: You aren't accomplished as me at logic. You refuse to listen. You aren't critical thinkers. <swans off>
A: None of which changes the fact that ... you have no evidence.

Ah, the "no evidence" card. That's the card unthinking, unsophisticated, critically-thinking impaired atheists play. It is trivially easy to prove you wrong: Let's try an easy one related to the earlier post: Luke. Why is Luke not evidence?

[KevinM1]

I'm just chuckling at how simplistic this all is.

If I think Rob has a dog, but find no evidence of a dog, that doesn't mean he must therefore have a cat.  Several other possibilities exist, including him actually owning a dog and being particular about hiding evidence for it.

So, if a natural event doesn't have a yet known natural cause, that doesn't mean the cause must be the supernatural.  Several other possibilities exist, including a yet undiscovered natural cause for that event.

There's no need for equations or anything, just a basic grasp of what a very obvious fallacy is.

For your point to mean anything, you need to discuss the supernatural in vague terms. However, you have just erected a straw man because that is not how people who believe in the supernatural consider this question AT ALL.

Look at the example above. If Jesus did do this thing in the context described, are you still going to hide behind "undiscovered natural causes?" No, only an idiot would think that. So what you have to say is that these events did not exist. Notice you are not really making the same argument you claim to be.

And for your point to mean anything, you need to believe in the Jesus myth.  Of which, regarding miracles and magic, there is absolutely 0 evidence of.

You’re doing the same thing you always do - attempt to make the fantastic elements of your faith real through poor arguments (starting from “If this actually happened...” is laughably weak) and a litany of ‘reasons’ that are all rooted in one fallacy or another.

Again, you think you’re some learned scholar, yet you can’t even hack it with the basics.  You need to establish your premise - that Jesus existed and performed these acts exactly as described in the Bible - before moving towards your conclusion.  Instead, just like every theist, you presuppose the conclusion (what Jesus did was evidence of the supernatural) and then try to contort the premise(s) so that it logically follows.

I am distinctly unimpressed.

Clearly demonstrate that Jesus actually did this miraculous thing (hint: THE BIBLE IS THE CLAIM), and then come back to us regarding the supernatural.  Otherwise you’re simply mentally masturbating, and that’s something I feel you should do in private.

[GrandizerII]

Just chuckling like mad at the argument ...

A:You have no evidence
S: Looks! Maths! Scary symbols! Probability and Bayes theorem you'll have accept me on! Not at all garbage-in-garbage-out!
A: You have no evidence.
S: You aren't accomplished as me at logic. You refuse to listen. You aren't critical thinkers. <swans off>
A: None of which changes the fact that ... you have no evidence.

Ah, the "no evidence" card. That's the card unthinking, unsophisticated, critically-thinking impaired atheists play. It is trivially easy to prove you wrong: Let's try an easy one related to the earlier post: Luke. Why is Luke not evidence?

In the context of Bayesian reasoning, it's not evidence if we both don't agree it is evidence. The real world point of Bayes' theorem is to provide posterior probabilities of explanations or whatever given what we both accept to be true.

[Angrboda]

What can you infer from it?  If you can't connect the dots between the supernatural and any supposed cause, such as God, then the supernatural can't be used as evidence for a specific cause.  Out go all the miracles of the bible since you apparently can't link them to God.  The supernatural then becomes simply the unexplained.

Why can't you connect the dots in many cases? Context seems to be very important. I have written this before (I think to you actually):

When discussing Jesus' miracles, the context that strengthens the probability that the cause was supernatural, might include:

1. Timing 
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.

In the first place, you didn't understand what I wrote. I said that you cannot connect the effect up to any particular cause, and specifically that you can't connect these miracles up to God as the cause. If miracles have no causal story, as you seem to be implying, then you can't connect them up to anything. Perhaps Jesus was just a very powerful wizard? Or perhaps one of the disciples was the wizard, and was simply playing Jesus for a rube. Or perhaps these things just simply happened out of the blue, and the real miracle is that Jesus was able to predict when these uncaused events would occur, and used that ability to hitch his star to something higher? (I could make a mint if I could only predict when people's cancers were going to go into remission. Televangelists today play this very angle.) You don't know because by definition, the supernatural does not have an ordinary cause. You've severed any possible link between event and cause, because by definition, there isn't any link between the two that we can discern.

Beyond that, believing that the accounts in the bible happened as recorded is simply begging the question. People frequently mistake the order of events even right after something occurs, much less 20 or more years after the fact. And if events occur out of order, say the person was healed and then Jesus made his proclamation, it's a known fact that people tend to reorder things in their mind to make a coherent story; memory is more reconstruction, than recall. But it's irrelevant, as the point is that all the miracles in the bible, under your definition, simply become unexplained phenomenon. This robs the bible of any authority it might have had and opens up a whole range of alternate explanations for the claims about God made therein.

[Angrboda]

We are left with only observing the natural effect. We can rationally infer a supernatural cause if the probability of there being a natural cause is sufficiently low. 

No, this is simply false. Our knowledge of the natural is necessarily incomplete, so we can never completely rule out a natural cause. We can determine the probability of the natural causes we know about being responsible, however we can never know the true probability that an event has a natural cause. Your argument is faulty. This follows from the apophatic way in which you've defined the supernatural. This is little more than an appeal to ignorance. If an event has no known natural cause then the event is "unexplained," not supernatural.