A Free One for the Apologists

[Jagella]

Hold on to your halos, Christians, but I'm about to agree with you and disagree with Bart Ehrman on an issue. Bart Ehrman insists that miracles cannot be considered historical because they are the least probable of any event. I disagree with Bart's logic because a miracle, improbable as it might seem, might be considered historical if the evidence is good enough.

I think the following is a good example of a miracle we can be assured happened. Let's say Donald Trump holds a press conference (a miracle in its own right). At that press conference our dear president begins to levitate and float around the room defying gravity. The media including CNN and Fox News (bitter enemies) get all of this on camera. The resulting video is very clear and shows that Donald had no tether or any other contrivance that could have lifted him. James "the Amazing" Randi, an arch skeptic of miracles, happens to be at that press conference. He pushes his way past the Secret Service men and carefully examines the President. His face all white Randi gushes in front of the entire press corps: "It's a miracle--a true-blue jen-you-wine miracle!"

So do you agree that good evidence trumps probability when we judge the historicity of a miracle or any other event?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 5 by JehovahsWitness]

The first circumstance would be to determine if there is a supernatural power able to perform or enable a miracle to be possible.

Ok...so how do we do that? Just to head you off, we cannot use what is written in the Bible (such as the resurrection of Jesus) to help prove there is a supernatural power with the ability to perform these miracles, because then that would be circular reasoning.

If we figure in there *is* a God,

Ok, but just to let you know and as you probably guess, I am going to say that we have not yet figured in a God. I have not seen a reason from you that we should say so.

For example, if the event is unique, would it be in line with any revelations of his character, purpose and communicated intent.

What revelations?

what are the other circumstances of miraculous events and how do they compare with thre previous?

What previous miracles? As this post from yours tries to do, you try to prove there is a supernatural power that can do miracles. This means that you cannot use other things you may label miracles to prove this thing, because again, circular reasoning.

Given the above, all things being equal, even a sceptic must conclude that the miracles presented in the bible probably did indeed happened.

Nope. You gave us no reason to "figure in" a supernatural power.

As you and liam note, (several times on liam's part), you need a supernatural power in order to be able to say with some justification that these miracles occurred. However, not once do you or he show that this supernatural power even exists. Liam just says that it is a good explanation. Lots of things make good explanations, but he doesn't go the extra necessary step of showing that his good explanation is actually reflective of reality.

[bjs]

[Replying to Jagella]

I have a serious problem believing that this evidence would be good enough. Skeptics, even arch skeptics, can be paid off. News organizations can be fooled. Camera tricks are well known. I do not find it plausible that this would convince a large percentage of people who are currently skeptical of miracles.

The example provided would ultimately come down to if someone trusts the accounts of the event or not. It does not seem to have any advantage in believability over, for instance, the miracles recorded in the Bible.

[bluethread]

Such is the nature of the past. Scientific humanists often insist on scientific verification of past events. One can not scientifically test what has happened in the past. One can only scientifically test the current state of things and processes. One of the steps in the scientific process is documentation. It is this documentation that can be combined with other documentation, testimony and reason to theorize with regard to the past. Until someone invents a time machine, that is the best we have. Probability is also of little help. Probability measures tendencies in large populations. It is a common error, often employed in the health industry, to make conclusions regarding a particular case based on probabilities. Every statistical sample is made up of a range of values, one can not identify a particular value within that range using the statistical data. In fact, unless one has an infinite sample, there is always the possibility of an outlier, so even the statistical range does not preclude a particular case.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

Srsly? There's obviously a political angle if it happened at a Trump press conference. It's been two years since James Randi retired and his foundation's million-dollar challenge was terminated. Trump surely has enough money to buy off a celebrity whose reputation has little or no more financial value. So all you're relying on is the cameras, which can be fooled easily enough - or on camera crews who could likewise have been paid a paltry million dollars each!

Maybe instead it happened at some celebrity's birthday party which CNN, Fox and Randi were attending. But a quick glance at the week's headlines would almost certainly reveal that it could still be a political distraction effort funded by any number of billionaires. So obvious.

OK, then allow me to move the goalposts up a bit. Let's assume there is no evidence at all for any kind of "political distraction." The whole thing has been thoroughly investigated, and there is no payoff or sleight of hand.

It's always possible to deny evidence no matter how good it might be. There's always a tiny crack that can have a crow bar inserted into.

But before you flame me, you may have noticed something about the scenario in the OP. I've posted evidence for a miracle that is relatively good. It is much better evidence than any evidence offered by apologists for miracles. It may inspire apologists to put up or shut up.

I'm not sure it is better evidence than for some miracle claims I've seen, though it certainly beats most of 'em. But my point is that for many critics of such events, that "tiny crack" will always be a gaping chasm - at least in any even remotely plausible scenario. And lets face it, even the scenario of relatively good evidence which you provided is not very plausible to begin with, because even if 'miracles' do occur, they're not likely to happen in front of multiple TV crews and internationally-recognized professional sceptics.

If miracles do occur, the source of them - whether its a Hindu god or the Christian God or some rare deeply latent human powers or whatever - obviously is not too worried about providing internationally-recognized scientifically unquestionable proof. If that was going to happen as a matter of deliberate intention, it presumably would have happened by now. So as rare as 'miracles' or the like are, which even their believers recognize to be the case, the odds of one occurring by pure happenstance in circumstances which could be conclusively, unquestionably verified are virtually nil.

Your scenario describes what sceptics might want to see as evidence... and it still probably wouldn't be enough for many.

But if miracles do occur, the kind of evidence we should expect to see at this point is obviously a lot less than that.

By loose analogy, what we might want to see of planets orbiting distant stars is high-resolution imagery showing continents and cloud cover. But because of known and perfectly reasonable limitations, what we expect to see and what we are currently content with, are tiny wobbles in the relative motion of a visible star.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 4 by Realworldjack]

So, as we look at the Resurrection recorded in the Bible, we should all understand that the probability of a Resurrection occurring are, zero. However, this would have nothing whatsoever to do with, whether a Resurrection has indeed occurred.

Answering my own question, I's say that yes, good evidence does trump probability even in the case of miracle claims. Otherwise, no actual miraculous event could ever be accepted for the fact it is. I don't know if I'd say that a resurrection is impossible, but the chance of one happening is close to zero. Nevertheless, if we had evidence like the hypothetical evidence I posited in the OP for Jesus rising from the dead, then I think I would believe he did rise from the dead. Probabilities only come into play in the absence of good evidence.

[Jagella]

[Replying to Jagella]

I have a serious problem believing that this evidence would be good enough. Skeptics, even arch skeptics, can be paid off. News organizations can be fooled. Camera tricks are well known. I do not find it plausible that this would convince a large percentage of people who are currently skeptical of miracles.

The evidence I posited has many strengths. It provides high-quality photography and video from multiple, independent sources. Eyewitness accounts from dozens of living, trusted and well-known persons is available. Note that I posited that both CNN and Fox News are present to record the miracle. These agencies are very much at odds with each other and unlikely to conspire to falsify an event. Finally, James the Amazing Randi, a witness very hostile and skeptical of miracles and trained to expose fakery, is present to verify that no sleight of hand is responsible for Trump's flight.

The example provided would ultimately come down to if someone trusts the accounts of the event or not. It does not seem to have any advantage in believability over, for instance, the miracles recorded in the Bible.

The evidence I posited is superior in quality to the Bible. Unlike my scenario, the Bible has no video or photographs. Heck, it doesn't have any paintings or sculpture both of which were available in Bible days. The Bible presents only testimony from Jews and Christians. We don't know who many of the Bible writers were.

You may be playing into the hands of the apologists by refusing to accept such evidence. They can argue that skeptics have their minds made up and won't accept evidence of any kind for the Bible god.

[Realworldjack]

good evidence trumps probability when we judge the historicity of a miracle or any other event?

This is a fantastic point, and well said! I have never really understood people who base what they believe upon, "the probabilities." However, there seem to be a lot of folks here on this site that do just that. In fact, I have had one member who claimed, "probabilities is all we have."

Now, I understand that, probabilities are factored in, but the probabilities really have no bearing at all upon whether an event actually occurred or not.

As an example, what were the probabilities that Trump would win the election? I would say, they were not very good at all, and when I woke up that next Wednesday mourning I was in shock! This certainly demonstrates that the probabilities have nothing to do with it at all.

So, as we look at the Resurrection recorded in the Bible, we should all understand that the probability of a Resurrection occurring are, zero. However, this would have nothing whatsoever to do with, whether a Resurrection has indeed occurred.

There are at least four distinct things that people can mean when they talk about 'probability':
> The real likelihood of an event occurring in terms of its long term frequency of occurrence (frequentist probability)
> The real likelihood of an event occurring given all specific circumstances causing or constraining that event (propensity probability)
> The probability we estimate of an event occurring, given how much or how little we know about the above (prior probability)
> The probability we estimate that the event did occur, or that a given proposition is true, given further knowledge/hindsight (posterior probability - its plausibility might be a less confusing term in this case)

The former two are types of physical or objectivist probabilities, the latter two are loosely along the lines of Bayesian probability.

Objectivist probabilities are obviously much more useful if we're talking about coin flips or rolling dice, or for most requirements in the physical sciences. But for things like weather forecasts, election results, economic outcomes, historical enquiry and so on, the limitations of what we know make such objectivist approaches virtually pointless because they are impossible.

The real likelihood that Trump was going to win the election would have somewhere close to if not exactly 100%; people were going to vote the way they ended up voting regardless of whether or not the political polling managed to detect those trends. In fact if determinism were true, then everything would have either a 100% or 0% probability, whether it had already happened or not; yet even the objectivist probabilities purporting to capture the real likelihood of an event do not suggest that level of specificity in their results. So ultimately it's true that probabilities are all we have - or put differently, that there is uncertainty for every event and every proposition.

I tried to highlight these distinctions, and how they are sometimes (incorrectly) applied in the case of 'miracles' or the like, in my recent thread Probability and rare or paranormal events.



The prior probability, given what we know, of a 'miracle' occurring will always be essentially zero, because even those who believe in them agree that they are exceedingly rare and unpredictable. However the real likelihood that one will occur may be anywhere from 0 to 100%, and we really can't know which without making religious or philosophical presuppositions - pretending to know the mind of god or the true nature of reality. It seems that Bart Ehrman has confused those two concepts, and then further carried that supposed near-zero probability over into, or replacing, his posterior assessment of the available evidence.

Form what I understand here, we seem to be in agreement then. In other words, probabilities have no bearing at all upon, if, or whether an event can, or could occur.

With this being the case, if I hear a report of an extraordinary event, I may simply weigh the odds, and go on to highly doubt the event actually occurred. I think that we all do this many times, especially if we may not be all that interested one way or the other.

However, if I were truly interested in getting to the bottom of a story, I could go beyond the odds, in order to determine if there may be some sort evidence that may support the claim, and go on to examine such evidence.

So then, while I may weigh the probabilities in some cases that I am not all that interested in, and choose to highly doubt such claims, I would never claim that the probabilities are evidence in themselves, and they are certainly not proof. However, there certainly seem to be those here on this site who believe the probabilities, have some sort of bearing upon reality.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 4 by Realworldjack]

So, as we look at the Resurrection recorded in the Bible, we should all understand that the probability of a Resurrection occurring are, zero. However, this would have nothing whatsoever to do with, whether a Resurrection has indeed occurred.

Answering my own question, I's say that yes, good evidence does trump probability even in the case of miracle claims. Otherwise, no actual miraculous event could ever be accepted for the fact it is. I don't know if I'd say that a resurrection is impossible, but the chance of one happening is close to zero. Nevertheless, if we had evidence like the hypothetical evidence I posited in the OP for Jesus rising from the dead, then I think I would believe he did rise from the dead. Probabilities only come into play in the absence of good evidence.

Otherwise, no actual miraculous event could ever be accepted for the fact it is.

Do you happen to know of "any miraculous events" that can be "accepted as fact?" I do not.

I don't know if I'd say that a resurrection is impossible, but the chance of one happening is close to zero.

I tend to agree here, except for the fact that I believe a resurrection is, impossible. You see, I do not believe that the Biblical writers were attempting to persuade anyone that a resurrection was possible. Rather, they seem to be announcing that, the impossible occurred.

Probabilities only come into play in the absence of good evidence.

This may be true, but the probabilities never have any bearing at all upon whether an event actually occurred, or not. Probabilities only have bearing upon whether I may highly doubt such things, or tend to believe them.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 18 by Realworldjack]

Do you happen to know of "any miraculous events" that can be "accepted as fact?" I do not.

I suppose it depends on who is doing the accepting. I am not convinced of any miracles ever happening if by "miracles" we are referring to some of the events described in the Bible like seas parting or saviors resurrecting. Other people, of course, do believe in those miracles. So it's subjective as to what we will accept as true.

I tend to agree here, except for the fact that I believe a resurrection is, impossible.

That might be true. Why is a resurrection impossible? I know of no logical impossibilities, but rising from the dead may be biologically or physically impossible. Perhaps the Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out a resurrection, but it probably does not. There may be some biological law that makes it impossible, but I don't know of any.

You see, I do not believe that the Biblical writers were attempting to persuade anyone that a resurrection was possible. Rather, they seem to be announcing that, the impossible occurred.

We know of at least one person who is said to have initially doubted the resurrection claims: Thomas. The "Doubting Thomas" story seems to be evidence that not all people in First-Century Israel were quick to believe wild stories. So at least some of them may have thought a rising from the dead was impossible or very unlikely.

This may be true, but the probabilities never have any bearing at all upon whether an event actually occurred, or not. Probabilities only have bearing upon whether I may highly doubt such things, or tend to believe them.

The reason I said that probabilities only come into play in the absence of good evidence is that in some cases the only evidence we have are written stories. Written stories are not what I think are good evidence. If that's all we have, then that's when we must ask how probable is it that what those stories describe are true.

[Kenisaw]

Such is the nature of the past. Scientific humanists often insist on scientific verification of past events. One can not scientifically test what has happened in the past.

Complete and utter bull. You see sunlight today? That light you saw left the Sun eight minutes before you saw it. I saw it too. Sounds like a verification of a past event to me...

One can only scientifically test the current state of things and processes. One of the steps in the scientific process is documentation. It is this documentation that can be combined with other documentation, testimony and reason to theorize with regard to the past. Until someone invents a time machine, that is the best we have.

Yet somehow forensic evidence gathered from a crime scene continues to prove things in a court of law. I guess we should let all those criminals out, since we don't have a time machine.


The pseudo science nonsense about "observational verses historical" science is a nonexistent issue. Even Ken Hamm had to admit that during his chit chat with Bill Nye. Using the irrational line of thought as outlined by Bluethread above, we can't ever verify anything ever done by anyone. We can't verify Newton's gravity test, because we don't have that apple falling out of that tree, at the time it happened.

Data from the past can and does exist, and it can be used in a number of ways to help us determine what transpired in the past. You can indeed scientifically test the past. Ask anyone in Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary if you don't believe me.