The rationality of the Resurrection

[The Tanager]

The thread this conversation naturally came out of (who knows how long ago) has recently gotten back on the direct original topic, so the Moderator advised us to get back on topic there. So, I figured I should make a new thread should Justin108 want to continue our discussion here and, of course, anyone else can join in.

I just explained to you why it is. Technically speaking, me telling you I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln this morning is a historic claim.

history
hst()ri/
noun
1.
the study of past events, particularly in human affairs.

"This morning" is a past event.

So again I ask, would you a priori assume it is less likely that I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln than that I had breakfast with my girlfriend? Or are both scenarios equally likely?

Again, I agree with you if all we have is a claim. In your breakfast scenario (and others) all we have is your claim. No other evidence to consider. So, I should only look at prior probability. But as soon as you start adding in other pieces of evidence, other facts, then we look at the facts, not prior probability. We look at if Lincoln's tomb is empty or video evidence or whatever you want to claim is a fact. We decide what is a fact and then look at the various possible theories based on those facts.

"Stick to it"? I'm not hellbent on sticking to anything. All I want is sufficient evidence.

Have you ever seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail? Or maybe it's in The Life of Brian. Where the speaker is saying 'you' in a general sense and a person in the crowd keeps pointing to himself and taking it very specifically? I love those movies.

Anyway, this was a case of me using the general 'you.' You are judging the resurrection (at least by the critique you keep focusing on) by prior probability alone, when you have already agreed with me to consider the extra facts we've talked about. As soon as you start adding in other pieces of evidence, other facts, then we should look at the facts and not prior probability.

If you present me with sufficient evidence that you won the lottery, I would believe you. A priori probability does not mean that these events are impossible. I never suggested that.

I never thought you did.

All it means is that it is far less likely. And because of that, it requires more evidence than most other claims. The claim that I had breakfast with my girlfriend requires less evidence than the claim that I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln. The claim that Julius Caesar was assassinated requires less evidence than the claim that Jesus came back from the dead.

I agree.

The details added to the resurrection account are insufficient to convince me that someone came back from the dead.

So in your mind, any evidence is enough evidence? Or do you recognize that some claims require more evidence than others? You provided evidence, but your evidence is insufficient. Are you familiar with the concept of insufficient evidence?

I never said or implied that any evidence is enough evidence. I'm saying don't just say the evidence is insufficient. I'm asking you to explain why, to show the line of reasoning. Rationally show how it falls short. All you have done to support that claim so far is to say that resurrections are improbable. That doesn't cut it. I explain further why I think that doesn't cut it in the next response...

If I said I had breakfast with my girlfriend instead, would you also doubt me if I provided no evidence? Do you demand evidence for every claim? Probably not. And that's my point. Some claims require evidence, while others do not. Some claims require a lot of evidence while others do not. That's what a priori probability means.

I wouldn't doubt you. I may doubt someone I knew was a pathological liar, but I definitely don't have any reason to believe you are one. I don't demand evidence for every claim. If that is your point than we are talking past each other. I haven't claimed every claim requires evidence.

Philosophically, a priori refers to a proposition being knowable independently of experience. And that is how it has seemed to me that you have been using a priori probability. The probability of an action in general without considering any historical evidence for a specific supposed instance of such an action.

I agree with you that the probability of a resurrection, taken generally, is very low. And so if we are just comparing probability of a resurrection versus someone lying or hallucinating, etc. then a resurrection is less probable.

But we aren't doint that here. We are talking a specific historical claim and we don't have to just rely on a priori probability. We have facts to take into consideration. It's now an a posteriori analysis. When a claim has evidence to take into consideration we should take that evidence into consideration. We should not analyze an a posteriori argument as though it were only an a priori argument. That is what it appears to me that you are doing. You are saying Jesus' specific supposed resurrection is not true because, generally, resurrections are not things that occur. That skips over the evidence, facts we are supposed to be considering.

If it turns out that Michael Jackson's grave was empty, would this fact be enough to support the theory that Michael Jackson came back from the dead and started killing people? We have the additional facts you asked for.

I didn't say that would be enough. And an empty tomb is not all the evidence I presented to tip the scales in favor of the "it's an actual resurrection"-theory.

What exactly do you mean by "explain away the resurrection"?

Why would Paul lying about the 500 prove the "it's an actual resurrection"-theory to be wrong?

Your opinion is noted. I disagree. I do not need to rely on someone coming back from the dead in order to fathom the start of a new religion. Religion does not require supernatural origins.

I wasn't making a claim about any new religion starting, but a specific one. Religions start for different reasons.

Christianity took Jews that were strictly monotheistic and who looked forward to a coming political Messiah that would set things right, free them from Rome and that at the end of time would bring back the resurrection of the righteous (among other things) and then...after Jesus dies...this group claims the resurrection happened now to Jesus, that they have seen him, that the Messiah is a crucified-and-risen Messiah, who is God and Israel is not going to be set free from Rome, but the resurrection for them will still be at the end of time (among other things). And these disciples boldly proclaimed this message, despite persecution and were willing to be persecuted and killed for their belief that Jesus did rise from the dead.

That these were hallucinations or the disciples were liars or that Jesus didn't really die, etc. don't explain the start of this specific religion. I've already stated why and you haven't responded to those specific points. So, there is no burden for me to say anything more on those right now.

Your response has been to take an a posteriori argument and judge it by [a]a priori[/i] standards: general probability alone, ignoring evidence that should be taken into consideration. That seems irrational to me. I'd love to hear the reasoning out of why you think it's not.

Conjecture

If you disagree, do you have examples of people dying for what they know to be a lie? I'm open to hearing your support for believing some people would die for something they know is a lie. Not those hundreds of years later thinking it is true, but those who actually devised the lie. And let's not get into the "it's your burden" thing. We should both back up our view. We've definitely come across historical figures recanting a lie when it gets too hot for them to handle. Why would someone die for a lie? I'm willing to talk this out.

Do I have to investigate in depth every single claim ever made in order to avoid being called lazy? Did you investigate every historic claim ever made that you can call me lazy? Did you investigate every religious claim ever made? Or are you just being a self-righteous hypocrite?

You are seriously misreading my posts. I never claimed you (specific or general sense) had to investigate in depth every single claim ever made. I claimed that IF you (general sense) reject a theory because you just don't care to investigate the claims then you are doing so irrationally (blind faith and laziness). That's not calling you lazy unless you feel you fit into that category. I wasn't judging you (specific sense). You are investigating the claim under question with me.

How much time have you spent investigating the claims of Islam? Of Hinduism? Buddhism? Taoism? Scientology? Mormonism? Hellenism? Can you tell me the exact origin of every hero in Hellenism? Can you name every god in Hinduism?

I have been interested in such things ever since I became a Christian the summer before starting college. I'm writing a dissertation on an aspect of Hindu thought as it relates to the Problem of Evil. I have touched upon the various one's you've mentioned (and others) but certainly I haven't exhausted such searches. You can only do so much. When made aware of an important claim, I do try my best to fully analyze it. I will always (I hope) seek to grow in such knowledge and I feel I'm always open to change my mind. This journey in dialoguing with beliefs that aren't mine has been a tremendously beneficial journey to me in so many ways.

Contrary to what you might think, Christianity does not hold some kind of unique privilege where we are forced to contemplate it above all other religions.

I agree. I think many religious (and secular) worldviews are worth our contemplation. Take them as they come.

I have said this countless times already. One does not need to come up with a substitute explanation in order to doubt a given explanation.

And the last time you said it, I agreed. I then tried to clarify the point I was actually making. You can doubt Genghis Khan's resurrection for sufficient or insufficient reasons. Even if you doubt it for insufficient reasons, you could be right in your belief. I'm interested in doubting things for sufficient reasons. Should someone want to argue that Genghis Khan came back from the dead and told me what difference it would make (if true)...and I thought that difference a good enough difference, I would want to rationally doubt it, not to doubt it for insufficient reasons.

[Kenisaw]

Could you please explain why one claim would demand more evidence than any other claim? Does it demand more evidence for the claim to actually be true? Or, does it demand more evidence simply for you to believe it?

1) I put on shoes yesterday.

2) I put on a Tyreek Hill costume yesterday, and played for the Kansas City Chiefs, and it was me and not the actual Tyreek Hill that scored a 75 yard TD against the Patriots in the 2017 NFL season opener.

If you really think these two claims are the same, or demand the same amount of evidence, please let us know. I'd like to have you on the record for saying that...

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 3 by Mithrae]

Most of the main hypotheses have explanatory scope and power, so the only real point you're making is with regard to the quantity of ad hoc assumptions. It's worth noting that not all ad hoc assumptions are equally ad hoccy, so merely talking about the number of such assumptions is a little misleading.

I do not think 'most' of the popular hypothesis meet all criteria but 'ad hoc'.



Most theories do not have explanatory scope or power; for one they require a new theory to explain Paul's and James' conversions. When you jump from 'the disciples fell into cognitive dissonance' to Paul 'felt guilty' you have two theories for the psychological state of both parties were completely different. Likewise, what needs to be explained is not merely the earliest belief in the resurrection, but the aftermath: the earliest epistles and the gospels. For instance, one needs a theory which neatly shows how gospel stories in which women discover an empty tomb arise a mere 30 to 40 years after the initial historical event. When one theory can explain all the data, a conglomerate of theories should be deemed inferior. Obviously a theory in which women actually found their master's tomb empty explains how gospels later reported how women actually reported their master's tomb empty.

It is true that 'ad hoc' overlaps with the other criteria, for when a theory lacks explanatory scope and power, the theory needs to make up for the inefficiency by throwing in a bunch of 'maybes'. I leave the maybes for non-historically minded people.

Most natural theories lack plausibility, let alone probability. It is improbable to the degree of absurd that Jesus could've survived the crucifixion; It is implausible and improbable that a Jew would wish to convince his disciples that he was resurrected after being impaled on a cross. it is implausible that a few hundred of his disciples would have accepted his deplorable state as proof of his resurrection: we have zero historical claims of a resurrection from the time period in which more than 500 people are even said to have seen the formerly dead man walking about.

So, I disagree. Other theories fail on multiple criterion

[Mithrae]

Most natural theories lack plausibility, let alone probability. It is improbable to the degree of absurd that Jesus could've survived the crucifixion; It is implausible and improbable that a Jew would wish to convince his disciples that he was resurrected after being impaled on a cross. it is implausible that a few hundred of his disciples would have accepted his deplorable state as proof of his resurrection: we have zero historical claims of a resurrection from the time period in which more than 500 people are even said to have seen the formerly dead man walking about.

Relying on that dubious pentakosioi figure - when I've already shown you on multiple occasions that it's all but impossible according to even Luke, who distinctly draws on 1 Corinthians elsewhere - doesn't exactly suggest that you've got any aces to play

None of those other examples is exceptionally improbable, since Josephus gives at least one case of someone surviving crucifixion when taken down early (and it's not as though any other survivors were likely to brag about it!) and there's innumerable cases of people perpetrating religious or counter-religious fraud, of seeing what they want to see and later embellishing the details and so on. More to the point none of those details is even important in, for example, a theory that the women went to the wrong tomb, got their hopes up and some core disciples simply decided to roll with it.

[Replying to post 3 by Mithrae]

Most of the main hypotheses have explanatory scope and power, so the only real point you're making is with regard to the quantity of ad hoc assumptions. It's worth noting that not all ad hoc assumptions are equally ad hoccy, so merely talking about the number of such assumptions is a little misleading.

I do not think 'most' of the popular hypothesis meet all criteria but 'ad hoc'.

Most theories do not have explanatory scope or power; for one they require a new theory to explain Paul's and James' conversions. When you jump from 'the disciples fell into cognitive dissonance' to Paul 'felt guilty' you have two theories for the psychological state of both parties were completely different. Likewise, what needs to be explained is not merely the earliest belief in the resurrection, but the aftermath: the earliest epistles and the gospels. For instance, one needs a theory which neatly shows how gospel stories in which women discover an empty tomb arise a mere 30 to 40 years after the initial historical event. When one theory can explain all the data, a conglomerate of theories should be deemed inferior. Obviously a theory in which women actually found their master's tomb empty explains how gospels later reported how women actually reported their master's tomb empty.

It is true that 'ad hoc' overlaps with the other criteria, for when a theory lacks explanatory scope and power, the theory needs to make up for the inefficiency by throwing in a bunch of 'maybes'. I leave the maybes for non-historically minded people.

By contrast, the traditional Christian 'theory' that the New Testament provides impeccable historical accounts is easily and demonstrably false on numerous important points. So you must explain
> why none of the witnesses to these supposedly world-shaping events recorded a written account of them, except perhaps Matthew (unaccountably lost, unless the hypothetical Q document was a Greek translation of it) and perhaps John (a primarily theological account treating historical detail as an occasional convenience),
> why all early authors, most easily demonstrable in the case of Paul, John, Luke and 'Matthew,' viewed the events of Jesus' life, death and resurrection so trivially as to select, omit, invent and even alter stories at will, resulting in various contradictions in details of even the most important events,
> why so few of the people in that time and place - according to Luke about 120, out of some 50,000-80,000 inhabitants of Jerusalem - were persuaded by seeing this supposedly world-shaping event, and why the movement waited over a month and the disappearance of the corpse (by either decay or levitation) before 'going public,'
> why the earliest full account of the story (Mark) retained no appearances of a risen Jesus at all and the other earliest source (Paul) says that Jesus "became a life-giving spirit" and teaches by analogy that the resurrected 'spiritual body' is "not the seed that was sown,"
> why there were evidently substantial doctrinal differences even within that early community and particularly between those two you name, Paul and James, who came late to the party and evidently with different agendas in mind, different followers to please so they'd keep that apostolic upkeep coming...

...and so on. If you've got no "maybes" to explain these major incongruities then your theory fails entirely. As I said, it is extremely debatable whether the traditional view of the resurrection is even the best theory to begin with, particularly given the magnitude of the ad hoc assumptions necessary to justify the relative paucity and atrocious contradictions in the available evidence for this supposedly most significant of all events to ever have occurred!

However I was not particularly interested in throwing stones back and forth over which theory's gaping holes are the more numerous and significant. On the contrary, I generally find it more challenging and hence educational and enjoyable to root for the underdogs But that argument which you used (and which you always use to demean all opinions which don't conform to your own on this point) seems clearly and obviously illogical, so could you please confirm:

Do you acknowledge that even if it happened to be the case that resurrection were the best of several theories, that still wouldn't necessarily make it probable?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 6 by Inigo Montoya]

I personally believe Jesus was raised for more than the case I've offered. I've specifically shared why I think someone (who doesn't have the additional reasons I do) should believe, so it would help me if you quoted my thoughts that you are wanting to critique.

Why do you believe Jesus was raised from the dead, Tanager? Can you answer without invoking a god?

What do you mean by 'without invoking a god?' Are you saying I am simply throwing God in there for no good reason (like a God of the gaps type of argument)? Or that an explanation should not have God as a part of it?

If your aim is historical, it can't be demonstrated beyond what amounts to the following: You believe that other people believed, and that is sufficient two thousand years later.

I did not say that was sufficient.

What other possible data do you get to consider?

I've talked about the tomb actually being empty and about the transformation and message of the Christian movement that arose. History isn't just about claims, but about also looking at other facts that can be reasonably established.

And I love the inference to the best explanation bit. On what planet is "he was raised from the dead" going to be the best explanation? Not this one. Oh gosh, was that me demonstrating an a priori bias against the supernatural?

So, are you saying that it's okay to have the bias?

Well what's the opposite of that? What do you call a worldview that holds open the door for miracles to fill in the blanks of history, and reinforce it with a method unable to deal with miracles?

If miracles aren't logically impossible, the door is held open by the open-minded. Whether the door is stepped through comes from the evidence. I'm not advocating a God-of-the-gaps type of argument here.

[The Tanager]

What kind of evidence would be required to believe that I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln this morning? Specifically?

You brought up this line of reasoning to defend your conclusion, so you lay it out.

I am not looking at prior probability alone. Given the evidence, the resurrection can be explained by people lying and people having delusions. Both of these conclusions are based on the evidence, and both of these conclusions, even after considering the evidence, are still more likely than a resurrection.

I said why, given the evidence, that was not the case and you didn't respond at all to my reasoning there. You've only asserted those theories fit.

[Justin108]

What kind of evidence would be required to believe that I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln this morning? Specifically?

You brought up this line of reasoning to defend your conclusion, so you lay it out.

Why should I lay it out? I asked you what kind of evidence would be sufficient for you to believe I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln? How should I know what evidence would be enough for you to believe?

You also neglected to respond to my other question.

Without appealing to prior probability, please explain what is wrong with this substitute theory:

After Jesus' death, an invisible alien spacecraft came to earth, stole Jesus' body, and replaced him by a shapeshifter who then fooled all his followers into thinking that he came back from the dead. Please, without referring to prior probability, explain what is wrong with my theory.

My theory has the following evidence
- Jesus' tomb is empty
- his followers saw him after his death

[The Tanager]

Why should I lay it out? I asked you what kind of evidence would be sufficient for you to believe I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln? How should I know what evidence would be enough for you to believe?

Because you said this in response to me asking you what kind of evidence would be sufficient for you to believe the resurrection actually happened. And I asked you that because your rebuttal (in part) to my view was basically that the evidence I pointed to, even if true, was not enough. I was trying to figure out why you thought it wasn't enough.

You also neglected to respond to my other question.

Without appealing to prior probability, please explain what is wrong with this substitute theory:

After Jesus' death, an invisible alien spacecraft came to earth, stole Jesus' body, and replaced him by a shapeshifter who then fooled all his followers into thinking that he came back from the dead. Please, without referring to prior probability, explain what is wrong with my theory.

My theory has the following evidence
- Jesus' tomb is empty
- his followers saw him after his death

That was a failure on my part. Honestly, I was frustrated at you asking me to do something that you have not done with the resurrection-actually-happened-theory or against what I've said against the other usual theories. But it's still worth responding to in a search for rationality.

It's a matter of simplicity. Either we have (1) an actual resurrection (which Jesus said would happen) happened and affected the disciples in a certain way or (2) an invisible alien ruse made it look exactly like an actual resurrection happened (fulfilling Jesus' predictions) and affected the disciples in a certain way. The alien theory is completely ad hoc, adding another layer of explanation without any reason to do so.

Could you return the courtesy now and explain why my reasonings against the view that the "people lying" and "people having delusions" theories are likely given the evidence we agreed upon, as well as where exactly the resurrection fails...without referring to prior probability?

[Justin108]

Why should I lay it out? I asked you what kind of evidence would be sufficient for you to believe I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln? How should I know what evidence would be enough for you to believe?

Because you said this in response to me asking you what kind of evidence would be sufficient for you to believe the resurrection actually happened. And I asked you that because your rebuttal (in part) to my view was basically that the evidence I pointed to, even if true, was not enough. I was trying to figure out why you thought it wasn't enough.

Are you going to answer my question or not? The reason I turned the question around on you is to illustrate that it's not an easy question to answer. Evidence is not like some sort of price tag where you know exactly how much you need for it to officially be enough. All you can know is whether or not the given evidence is enough. If you want to know exactly what evidence I will need to be convinced of Jesus' resurrection, then you will first need to tell me how much evidence is enough to convince you I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln. If you can't, then you simply prove my point that a question like that doesn't have a simple answer.

You also neglected to respond to my other question.

Without appealing to prior probability, please explain what is wrong with this substitute theory:

After Jesus' death, an invisible alien spacecraft came to earth, stole Jesus' body, and replaced him by a shapeshifter who then fooled all his followers into thinking that he came back from the dead. Please, without referring to prior probability, explain what is wrong with my theory.

My theory has the following evidence
- Jesus' tomb is empty
- his followers saw him after his death

It's a matter of simplicity.

Oh is it? Well people lying is a far simpler explanation than someone coming back from the dead.

Could you return the courtesy now and explain why my reasonings against the view that the "people lying" and "people having delusions" theories are likely given the evidence we agreed upon, as well as where exactly the resurrection fails...without referring to prior probability?

I have. Repeatedly. People lying are far more likely than people coming back from the dead. And I will refer to prior probability because there is not enough evidence to dismiss prior probability. If not enough evidence is presented to dismiss the prior probability, it becomes post probability and the post probability is exactly the same. People are still less likely to come back from the dead. All things considered, all evidence in mind, it is still less likely that someone came back from the dead.

His tomb was empty?
- so what? It is still unlikely that he came back from the dead

People claimed to have seen him?
- it is still unlikely that he came back from the dead

A new religion started?
- it is still unlikely that he came back from the dead

None of the evidence you presented changes the probability in favor of him coming back from the dead.

[The Tanager]

Are you going to answer my question or not? The reason I turned the question around on you is to illustrate that it's not an easy question to answer. Evidence is not like some sort of price tag where you know exactly how much you need for it to officially be enough. All you can know is whether or not the given evidence is enough. If you want to know exactly what evidence I will need to be convinced of Jesus' resurrection, then you will first need to tell me how much evidence is enough to convince you I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln. If you can't, then you simply prove my point that a question like that doesn't have a simple answer.

All the worse for your position. Let's compare what's gone on:

1. Your claim: You ate breakfast with Abraham Lincoln.
2. Your support beyond the mere claim: Nothing offered.
3. My reason for not believing your claim: With no further support offered, I am rational to rely on prior probability. And you agree with that reasoning.


1. My claim: Jesus actually resurrected.
2. My support beyond the mere claim: Empty tomb, the message and character of the early Christian movement, analysis of alternative theories and how they fail, including an analysis of the "I don't know, but it can't be that" theory and why it seems to me to fail.
3. Your reason here for not believing my claim: That's not enough evidence.
4. My response: Okay, so what would be enough evidence? Support your reason for not believing my claim; show us why it is not enough.
5. Your response: It's too hard to answer #4, but that's okay because you can't answer #4 for the Abraham Lincoln claim. I never said I could. #4 never comes up in our discussion of eating breakfast with Abraham Lincoln, though, so why should I? All I've asked you there is to offer some evidence for me to consider (beyond just a claim...note the difference between the step 2s above). And you haven't. If you did, I assure you my response would not simply be "that's not enough evidence." I don't think that is a rational support for a counter-conclusion and would not offer it.

These two arguments are not analogous like your conclusion rests on. Therefore, your conclusion is unsound.

Oh is it? Well people lying is a far simpler explanation than someone coming back from the dead.

Again, out of context. I did not say we should always turn to simplicity for disagreements. It was in a specific comparison between ONLY two theories that you asked me to compare: an actual resurrection and the alien deception theory created for the sole purpose of being as identical to the actual resurrection theory as possible without actually being it. You tried to show a theory that would be identical to the appearances, but then posit an invisible layer behind it. That goes against simplicity.

People lying versus a resurrection is not simpler. In a vacuum (i.e., without considering the other facts) lying is more probable. That's your real point here: it's more believable. That's not what simplicity is a synonym for. They (lying and actual resurrection theories) both attempt a direct explanation of the events. The alien abduction gives a direct and a hidden explanation. That's 2 layers. Lying and actual resurrection give 1 layer of explanation. That's being more simple. In simplicity, lying and actual resurrection theories are equally simple.

I have. Repeatedly. People lying are far more likely than people coming back from the dead. And I will refer to prior probability because there is not enough evidence to dismiss prior probability. If not enough evidence is presented to dismiss the prior probability, it becomes post probability and the post probability is exactly the same. People are still less likely to come back from the dead. All things considered, all evidence in mind, it is still less likely that someone came back from the dead.

If there is not enough evidence you can go to prior probability. Unfortunately for your case here you agree it's too difficult to justify what 'enough evidence' is and, therefore, to justify we have fallen short of that mark.

His tomb was empty?
- so what? It is still unlikely that he came back from the dead

People claimed to have seen him?
- it is still unlikely that he came back from the dead

A new religion started?
- it is still unlikely that he came back from the dead

None of the evidence you presented changes the probability in favor of him coming back from the dead.

You repeatedly claim that, yes. The support you have offered is: prior probability, a vague claim that it's not enough evidence. But you don't show this to be the case and even admit that it's too hard to support, thinking I was in the same boat.

[Justin108]

Are you going to answer my question or not? The reason I turned the question around on you is to illustrate that it's not an easy question to answer. Evidence is not like some sort of price tag where you know exactly how much you need for it to officially be enough. All you can know is whether or not the given evidence is enough. If you want to know exactly what evidence I will need to be convinced of Jesus' resurrection, then you will first need to tell me how much evidence is enough to convince you I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln. If you can't, then you simply prove my point that a question like that doesn't have a simple answer.

All the worse for your position. Let's compare what's gone on:

1. Your claim: You ate breakfast with Abraham Lincoln.
2. Your support beyond the mere claim: Nothing offered.
3. My reason for not believing your claim: With no further support offered, I am rational to rely on prior probability. And you agree with that reasoning.

I didn't ask you to assess the evidence I gave. I acknowledge I gave no evidence for my claims. I am asking what evidence would convince you. I am not asking whether the evidence I presented is enough. So if I made the claim that I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln, what evidence would I need to present in order to convince you of my claim?

You repeatedly claim that, yes. The support you have offered is: prior probability, a vague claim that it's not enough evidence. But you don't show this to be the case and even admit that it's too hard to support, thinking I was in the same boat.

And the reason you would doubt my claim of having breakfast with Abraham Lincoln is exactly the same: prior probability. And until you tell me what evidence would convince you I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln, the matter of 'not enough evidence' applies to you as well.