Dialogue with atheist, Bayes, Resurrection amputees: can we make probability for God?
this morning 2/24/17 face book the context CADRE member just made argument suppository resurrection with Bayes theorem. I do not agree with taught, But this guy seemed to be trying to use amputee issue to turn probability against God's existence,
Phil StilwellI didn't understand your reasoning. Can you apply the reasoning in your article to the probability an amputee will grow back their missing limb after prayer? Or are there too many biases involved, requiring us to conclude it's 50/50?
Phil StilwellAnd what's the likelihood you or I will be resurrected after being three days dead?
Phil StilwellAnd what's the likelihood previous accounts of resurrections were true?
Joe HinmanIt is still your burden proof to link that imagined probability to the idea tat it in any way argues agaisnt the existence of god; you can;'t calculator a probability for god or miracles,even though some try to. It;s a proof either way. bye the
Joe HinmanPhil Stilwell did you save the world from sin? That's why God raised Jesus from the dead why should he raise you?
Phil StilwellYet Christians continue to say "X is more probable than Y" even as they say "You can't calculate the probability for X". Incoherent.
Joe HinmanPhil Stilwell depeds upon what you are arguing,I don't use Bayes and I don't try to attach a number to historical probability, It is more likely there were Guards on the tomb and that some how the tomb turned up empty, I don't don't try to fix a percentage.
Phil StilwellThat's fine as long as you don't then go on to claim the resurrection is more probable than other explanations.
Joe Hinmanwe can still say the res is a logical inference given the facts that can be established, There is a likelihood but it can't be quantified, all history deals in unqualified likelihood, called "historical probability."
Phil StilwellLet me ask, is the resurrection more likely than someone making up the resurrection?
Phil StilwellIt sounds like apologists simply want to be able to say "X is more probable than Y" without actually substantiating the claim.
Joe HinmanAs I said it;s a matter of inference from the facts, This is the problem with layman's understanding of historical Probability,I am a historian. We don't think let;s attach a probably to a hypothetical, We think in terms of drawing inferences from documents, the documents establish facts.
Phil StilwellInference is dependent upon probabilities. You can't claim to be making an inference if you are not considering probabilities.
Joe Hinmanwe need to argue against the best arguments not the standard arguments.
Joe HinmanI don't buy the use of Bayes in historical argument, goes for either side
Phil StilwellWhat is my point?
Joe Hinmanyou started using the amputee argument which is usually used to imply no God, I figured you are getting at something like no probability for God, you did not say really dont' use Bayes for history,
Joe HinmanIn my opinion the amputee argument is one of the stupider moves in the atheist play book
Phil StilwellI don't understand. You believe your God can heal amputees, right? If so, what is the probability of an amputee being healed? This example is not at the moment to suggest a God who does not cure amputees is not real. It is only to allow you to demonstr..
Joe Hinmangod is not an automatic devise or a chemical reaction ,he does't just fire off and heal people as a cause effect response to prayer, he has will and plan,so he is the decider, that;s why you can't set probability for divine action. we don't know all the plan, we are not in charge,
Phil StilwellI don't care. That is not my argument. Reread my actual argument. I don't care whether God has a good reason not to cure amputees often. I simply want you to demonstrate how you go about determining the probability of an amputee being healed.
Joe HinmanI just told you I don't. are you incapable of understanding concepts? I just told you why we can';t attach quantified probability to events in history or to events involving divine action, we can say "it is a reasonable inference " or "we are arr warranted in believing this is a divine action we can';t say:this is 65% probability of divine action : do you understand this concept?