Atheist Bart Ehrman gets the historicity of miracles wrong.

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Paul of Tarsus
Banned
Banned
Posts: 688
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:42 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 150 times

Atheist Bart Ehrman gets the historicity of miracles wrong.

Post #1

Post by Paul of Tarsus »

I've watched the Ehrman vs Craig: Evidence for Resurrection debate video on YouTube several times, and as usual I am less than impressed with the polemics of Bart Ehrman. This time his fallacy involves the historicity of miracles and in particular the miracle of Christ's resurrection. His reasoning goes something like the following:

1. Miracles are the least likely correct explanation for any supposed historical event.
2. The story of the resurrection of Christ is a narrative of an event that if true requires a miraculous explanation.
Conclusion: Any naturalistic explanation of the story of Christ's being raised from the dead is more likely correct than an explanation that allows for the supernatural.

Is it true that miracles are so unlikely that any non-supernatural explanation for a claimed event is more likely true? I'm not sure why Ehrman seems to think miracles are so unlikely. While it's true that miracles are evidently rare, how probable they may be depends on the evidence for them. Ehrman seems to maintain a naturalistic view of miracles based more on an atheistic assumption than on any kind of evidence for them. That's not good reasoning.

I'd like to conclude this OP by pointing out that since I've been debating atheists, I can see that their reasoning is often as bad if not worse than the arguments made by apologists. It seems to me that there would be more atheists in the world if people stopped trying to disprove God.


User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 681 times
Been thanked: 470 times

Re: Atheist Bart Ehrman gets the historicity of miracles wrong.

Post #61

Post by bluegreenearth »

Mithrae wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:47 pm Is it accurate to say that we observe the cause of the ping-pong ball's movement, or is that more of a colloquial expression and the reality is that we infer with ~100% confidence that it's being moved by the blast of air rather than by tiny undetectable demons or by the parameters of a computer simulation?
Let's consider a blast of air and tiny undetectable demons as two imagined causes of the ping-pong ball's motion:

How do we determine which of those imagined causes is more than just an imagined cause? I presume you will grant us the ability to distinguish imaginary things from things we perceive as existing outside our imaginations. We can justifiably infer whether the blast of air is more than just an imaginary cause or not by predicting the ball will move the next time it is blasted with air and subsequently observe the outcome (I'm also presuming you will grant our ability to observe the outcome). If the ball moves after it is blasted with air, observing the prediction was accurate will allow us to justifiably infer that the blast of air was more than just an imagined cause. If the ball does not move after it is blasted with air, then the failed prediction will allow us to justifiably infer that the blast of air was just an imagined cause.

We cannot determine that tiny undetectable demons are anything more than imaginary causes because the claim doesn't make any novel predictions we could test to justifiably infer if it is more than something we've imagined. For example, if we place the ball in a vacuum chamber with a level surface in order to remove air and gravity as variables and predict that tiny undetectable demons will subsequently move the ball, a failure to observe the predicted outcome would not disprove the existence of tiny undetectable demons as a cause. If the ball does subsequently move inside the vacuum chamber, such an outcome still wouldn't demonstrate the existence of tiny undetectable demons as the cause because there would be an infinite number of other imagined causes that have not yet been ruled-out to leave tiny undetectable demons as the most probable explanation. As such, the claim that tiny demons are the cause is unfalsifiable and must be categorized as strictly imaginary until demonstrated otherwise. Accordingly, the cause of the ball's movement inside the vacuum chamber would have to be tentatively classified as unexplained.

Therefore, it is more justifiable to infer a blast of air as a possible cause than to infer the existence of tiny undetectable demons because the blast of air has been demonstrated to be more than something we are imagining. It is also more pragmatic to infer the blast of air as a cause because of its ability to make accurate predictions. Does this demonstrate with 100% certainty that the blast of air is a cause? No, but why is that necessary or a significant problem at this point?

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Atheist Bart Ehrman gets the historicity of miracles wrong.

Post #62

Post by brunumb »

Mithrae wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:29 am But until that happy day, the most reasonable conclusion seems to be that some significant fraction of the reported miracle observations - particularly among the hundreds of thousands of miracle healings reported by experts in the medical field - are indeed miracles.
Miracle of the gaps, is it not?
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Atheist Bart Ehrman gets the historicity of miracles wrong.

Post #63

Post by brunumb »

Mithrae wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:29 am To be clear, it's certainly possible that even among the seven most remarkable healings since 1960 some were the result of natural processes (and in some cases sceptical investigators such as James Randi have found doctors willing to advance ad hoc possibilities which might account for them), and obviously the proportion of misidentified 'miracles' would increase considerably for older reports less thoroughly investigated and with poorer medical knowledge. The question is simply how likely do you imagine that probability of misidentification is, in each case?
It doesn't have to come down to misidentification. The complexities of biochemistry are unknown to a large extent and a natural explanation should not be dismissed simply because we don't know enough. Without evidence of divine intervention, why would that be the option of choice when the cause is unknown. As far as i am concerned, 'we don't know what happened' is a far better response than 'it must have been a miracle'.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Atheist Bart Ehrman gets the historicity of miracles wrong.

Post #64

Post by Mithrae »

bluegreenearth wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:10 pm
Mithrae wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:47 pm Is it accurate to say that we observe the cause of the ping-pong ball's movement, or is that more of a colloquial expression and the reality is that we infer with ~100% confidence that it's being moved by the blast of air rather than by tiny undetectable demons or by the parameters of a computer simulation?
Let's consider a blast of air and tiny undetectable demons as two imagined causes of the ping-pong ball's motion:
. . . .

Therefore, it is more justifiable to infer a blast of air as a possible cause than to infer the existence of tiny undetectable demons because the blast of air has been demonstrated to be more than something we are imagining.
Yes, that's what I said, we infer that causation with ~100% confidence... we just don't strictly observe causation. Do you have any thoughts on my last paragraph?


brunumb wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:18 pm
Mithrae wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:29 am But until that happy day, the most reasonable conclusion seems to be that some significant fraction of the reported miracle observations - particularly among the hundreds of thousands of miracle healings reported by experts in the medical field - are indeed miracles.
Miracle of the gaps, is it not?
That's a nice catchphrase, but it's not an argument unless perhaps you answer the question I first posed to you in post #29... and I suspect not even then, but first things first I suppose. The 'god of the gaps' notion implies a steady progress in discovering a coherent, contrary worldview whose still-missing pieces are filled in with outdated superstition. Obviously if we cannot first demonstrate a coherent contrary worldview then there's really nothing there for there to be gaps in.

I would suggest that unbiased students of reality have no reason to make the distinction implied here, between the natural with any current gaps which proponents recognize in our understanding of it, and potential explanations in those 'gaps' which satisfy our reasonable epistemic criteria but are dubbed super-natural by some because they aren't in perfect conformity with the 'natural' view they favour. Rather, the relevant distinction is simply between consistent patterns/repeatable phenomena (which can be best scrutinized by science and most satisfactorily explained) and phenomena which are non-repeatable or inconsistent with more common patterns (and thus generally less amenable to scientific scrutiny and ideal explanations). But the latter category consists of far, far more than just reported miracles, and claiming that "we don't know" is an acceptable alternative to identifying the best-available-explanation merely because the best available doesn't approach 100% certainty would be a kind of solipsism, if that approach were applied consistently rather than to the so-called 'supernatural' only. We "don't know" whether the likes of Socrates or Plato existed, we "don't know" how technological progress will shape society, we "don't know" what the weather will be like in a few months' time, but we are quite capable and often even obligated to identify and use our best available understanding and theories in these and so many other cases. Gods and miracles seem to be particular exceptions to that pattern, for some people.
brunumb wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:27 pm
Mithrae wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:29 am To be clear, it's certainly possible that even among the seven most remarkable healings since 1960 some were the result of natural processes (and in some cases sceptical investigators such as James Randi have found doctors willing to advance ad hoc possibilities which might account for them), and obviously the proportion of misidentified 'miracles' would increase considerably for older reports less thoroughly investigated and with poorer medical knowledge. The question is simply how likely do you imagine that probability of misidentification is, in each case?
It doesn't have to come down to misidentification. The complexities of biochemistry are unknown to a large extent and a natural explanation should not be dismissed simply because we don't know enough. Without evidence of divine intervention, why would that be the option of choice when the cause is unknown. As far as i am concerned, 'we don't know what happened' is a far better response than 'it must have been a miracle'.
I haven't dismissed a natural explanation; you are dismissing the probability, plausibility or even any possibility of a divine explanation. Again, even with an irrationally hyper-sceptical assumption that each particular case of exceptional, medically unexplained rapid cures of serious illness observed and reported by medical experts as miraculous has only a meagre 1% possibility of being genuine, we'd still be left with a very high probability that at least one is indeed genuine. In fact it would be a near-certainty of the occurrence of thousands of miracles, given the number of expert reports implied by the fact that ~55% of medical doctors have observed miraculous healing. We're not talking about random weirdos seeing Bigfoot or some tiny fringe minority in the profession, we're talking about obviously intelligent, educated experts in their field for whom analytical thinking is a core aspect of their vocation; if miracles were simply a superstition which never really occurred, we would expect doctors to have much lower levels of reported belief in miracles than the general population, but instead they have comparable levels of belief and much higher levels of reported observation of miracles... as we might expect if a more or less benevolent deity actually did step in on occasion.

To assert as you do that there is no verification of miracles occurring - flying in the face of all the contrary evidence from experts in their field - would require a totally dogmatic assumption that in every case there is a 0% possibility that those doctors' conclusion is correct.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Atheist Bart Ehrman gets the historicity of miracles wrong.

Post #65

Post by Tcg »

Mithrae wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:24 pm
In fact it would be a near-certainty of the occurrence of thousands of miracles, given the number of expert reports implied by the fact that ~55% of medical doctors have observed miraculous healing. We're not talking about random weirdos seeing Bigfoot or some tiny fringe minority in the profession, we're talking about obviously intelligent, educated experts in their field for whom analytical thinking is a core aspect of their vocation; if miracles were simply a superstition which never really occurred, we would expect doctors to have much lower levels of reported belief in miracles than the general population, but instead they have comparable levels of belief and much higher levels of reported observation of miracles... as we might expect if a more or less benevolent deity actually did step in on occasion.
What tools did these "educated experts" use to measure the activity of this suggested more or less benevolent deity? Absent such a tool, opinions from this presumed intelligent population is nothing but supposition. It is also quite suspicious that we don't normally hear these doctors claim, "She only had a cold and yet died in less than 6 hours. It was clearly a miracle." Unexplained recoveries are "miracles." Unexplained deaths are simply one end of the continuum of natural odds.

It is not unusual for humans to jump to conclusions based on their hope that some more or less benevolent deity may once in a while bend the odds in the favor of some needy mortal. There is no reason to conclude that doctors would be immune to this tendency.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Atheist Bart Ehrman gets the historicity of miracles wrong.

Post #66

Post by brunumb »

Mithrae wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:24 pm Again, even with an irrationally hyper-sceptical assumption that each particular case of exceptional, medically unexplained rapid cures of serious illness observed and reported by medical experts as miraculous has only a meagre 1% possibility of being genuine, we'd still be left with a very high probability that at least one is indeed genuine.
Reported by medical experts as miraculous is hardly a valid criterion for identifying genuine miracles. Medically unexplained rapid cures may be identified as miracles by medical experts, but that doesn't mean that there is any divine agency involved. The existence of any divine agency needs to be established first, followed by evidence that said agent was involved in any alleged cure. You have not considered that if 99% of all miracle claims can have purely natural explanations, then so can 100%. We don't need to consult medical experts, we need to consult miracle experts and unfortunately there are none.

I still maintain that for some event to be regarded as a miracle it must be in contradiction of natural laws. If an amputated limb suddenly reappeared that would be in contradiction of the law of conservation of mass/energy. We could reasonably conclude in such an instance that a deity capable of creating matter may be involved and the event therefore miraculous. On the other hand, if the event is not in contradiction of natural laws then its occurrence need not be considered miraculous but rather a rarity or low probability event.

brunumb
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 681 times
Been thanked: 470 times

Re: Atheist Bart Ehrman gets the historicity of miracles wrong.

Post #67

Post by bluegreenearth »

Mithrae wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:47 pm Non-repeatable/non-consistent events are less amenable to such thorough scientific scrutiny of course, so any inferences about causation of those events must rationally have less than 100% confidence; far less, in each particular case. But so far I have not seen any merit (and on the contrary, some noteworthy fallacies) to the claim that inferences of divine causation belong in an entirely different and unjustified category to inferences of physical causation.
We can imagine a physical thing causing an event to happen, and we can imagine a divine thing causing an event to happen. Is the physical cause something we've just imagined or does it refer to something that can be demonstrated to exist outside our imaginations? Is the divine cause something we've just imagined or does it refer to something that can be demonstrated to exist outside our imaginations?

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Atheist Bart Ehrman gets the historicity of miracles wrong.

Post #68

Post by Mithrae »

bluegreenearth wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 8:55 am
Mithrae wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:47 pm Non-repeatable/non-consistent events are less amenable to such thorough scientific scrutiny of course, so any inferences about causation of those events must rationally have less than 100% confidence; far less, in each particular case. But so far I have not seen any merit (and on the contrary, some noteworthy fallacies) to the claim that inferences of divine causation belong in an entirely different and unjustified category to inferences of physical causation.
We can imagine a physical thing causing an event to happen, and we can imagine a divine thing causing an event to happen. Is the physical cause something we've just imagined or does it refer to something that can be demonstrated to exist outside our imaginations? Is the divine cause something we've just imagined or does it refer to something that can be demonstrated to exist outside our imaginations?
At times both have been imaginative of course, but in the better cases neither is something we've just imagined. Both are inferred from observational evidence based on their respective explanatory merits; often excellent explanatory strength in the case of consistent/repeatable physical causes, with generally less conclusive results in cases involving human or other agency and non-repeatable phenomena.

You seem to be using the phrase "demonstrated to exist" in a manner intended to distinguish between 'physical' and 'divine' causes as if to imply that anything below, say, ~98% confidence cannot be presumed to "exist outside our imaginations": If that is your stance, fair enough, I would simply point out (as I have several times already) that the relevant distinction lies in the strength of various inferences, not in the somewhat arbitrary physical/divine semantic distinction itself. Logical consistency would require acknowledging that this "demonstrated to exist" criterion as you seem to be using it would cast similar criticism over our opinions regarding the historicity of Plato, future effects of variables like technology on society, weather in upcoming weeks etc. as it would on the occurrence of miracles, since these and many more are likewise merely best-available-explanation/inference scenarios far below a certainty threshold.

#####
brunumb wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:28 am I still maintain that for some event to be regarded as a miracle it must be in contradiction of natural laws. If an amputated limb suddenly reappeared that would be in contradiction of the law of conservation of mass/energy. We could reasonably conclude in such an instance that a deity capable of creating matter may be involved and the event therefore miraculous. On the other hand, if the event is not in contradiction of natural laws then its occurrence need not be considered miraculous but rather a rarity or low probability event.
A limb could be replaced by transferring and rearranging atoms from the surrounding environment without violating conservation of mass/energy. A transfer of energy could briefly freeze the Galilean waters beneath someone's feet; but either of these scenarios would still obviously require the intervention of a divine or other external agency. Assuming which strings were or should be pulled for a god to get the job done - that they must be outside this universe rather than within it - has no discernible basis in observation or logic, and probably not too many theologies either if that was going to be your appeal?

That's quite aside from the fact that, forty posts after I first asked, you still haven't demonstrated even the existence (let alone alone precise extents) of these constrictive laws in the first place, so requiring something to be in violation of them is borderline incoherent to begin with.
brunumb wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:28 am The existence of any divine agency needs to be established first, followed by evidence that said agent was involved in any alleged cure. You have not considered that if 99% of all miracle claims can have purely natural explanations, then so can 100%. We don't need to consult medical experts, we need to consult miracle experts and unfortunately there are none.
What makes you think that even 99% of all miracle claims have purely natural explanations? As I said, that seems to be an irrationally hyper-sceptical assumption, going from "it seems contrary to the natural course of events but we're not completely sure" to "almost certainly a natural explanation." I've discussed the 'presumption of impossibility' angle at length with Stelar and Bluegreenearth already, so until you or someone else can establish the existence or even possibility of constrictive natural laws let's just accept that dogmatic dismissal of every miracle report until "divine agency is established first" (presumably through an instance somehow escaping that dogmatic dismissal...?) is an obviously fallacious/circular/special-pleading position.

#####
brunumb wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:28 am Reported by medical experts as miraculous is hardly a valid criterion for identifying genuine miracles. Medically unexplained rapid cures may be identified as miracles by medical experts, but that doesn't mean that there is any divine agency involved.
Tcg wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:59 pm What tools did these "educated experts" use to measure the activity of this suggested more or less benevolent deity? Absent such a tool, opinions from this presumed intelligent population is nothing but supposition.
- Remarkable medical outcomes.
- Medical experts who observed the outcome: "Looks like it's probably a miracle."
- People who don't like that answer: "Nooo! These remarkable medical outcomes need someone besides the observing medical experts to offer an explanation!"

Brunumb perhaps believes that ghosthunters or other paranormal specialists should be consulted instead of medical experts? Tcg perhaps believes that historians' reports on the past are nothing but supposition; gotta have those instrumental measurements, no such thing as best-available-explanation.
Tcg wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:59 pm It is also quite suspicious that we don't normally hear these doctors claim, "She only had a cold and yet died in less than 6 hours. It was clearly a miracle." Unexplained recoveries are "miracles." Unexplained deaths are simply one end of the continuum of natural odds.
There is no symmetry or comparison between a seemingly-healthy body ceasing to function due to unexpected problems with any one of a dozen critical organs, and a definitely-unhealthy body unexpectedly having the illness and its dozen organs all suddenly sort themselves out. Let me check... yes, it seems I've pointed this out to you before, to which you did not respond, so it seems a little disingenuous to continue posting the same misleading rhetoric without adding any kind of depth or substance to it.
Tcg wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:59 pm It is not unusual for humans to jump to conclusions based on their hope that some more or less benevolent deity may once in a while bend the odds in the favor of some needy mortal. There is no reason to conclude that doctors would be immune to this tendency.
This too has already been addressed - in the very section of my post which you quoted - so again it's quite difficult to take this as discussion in good faith. There absolutely is good reason to suppose that a group which on average are more intelligent, better educated and more analytical than the general population (not to mention witnessing far more natural suffering than most people) should have lower rates of belief in divine intervention, if in fact we lived in a world of no miracles. Instead quite the opposite is true, comparable rates of belief but much higher rates of reported observation of miracles... which is what we might expect in the scenario of a deity occasionally responding to genuine individual need.

I'm not even suggesting that any individual doctors' report should be taken as fact, far from it; but because granting even the tiniest sliver of credibility to their individual reports leads to apparently-uncomfortable conclusions for you guys, it seems you think that expert conclusions are to be utterly dismissed out of hand in this special case :?

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: Atheist Bart Ehrman gets the historicity of miracles wrong.

Post #69

Post by AgnosticBoy »

nobspeople wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 12:38 pm Problem with miracles is that they're based on ignorance. Knowledge replaces ignorance.
If we could travel back to 1400-ish (a miracle in of itself or an understanding of space time?) to a village with a mobile device that's charged and play the villagers a saved video clip of some science fiction program, that, to them, would be miraculous. Today, it's called technology.
Perhaps God or gods and their miracles have a similar relationship to what you just described. Gods are simply highly advanced, and their capabilities surpasses what we could ever do just as our modern day capabilities surpasses what ancient man could've ever done. But I would imagine that the differences between the gods (creators, designers, etc??) and mankind would have to be more than just a matter of technology. They also would have some inherent advancement that surpasses the inherent limitations of man and Universe.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 681 times
Been thanked: 470 times

Re: Atheist Bart Ehrman gets the historicity of miracles wrong.

Post #70

Post by bluegreenearth »

Mithrae wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 10:22 pm At times both have been imaginative of course, but in the better cases neither is something we've just imagined. Both are inferred from observational evidence based on their respective explanatory merits; often excellent explanatory strength in the case of consistent/repeatable physical causes, with generally less conclusive results in cases involving human or other agency and non-repeatable phenomena.

You seem to be using the phrase "demonstrated to exist" in a manner intended to distinguish between 'physical' and 'divine' causes as if to imply that anything below, say, ~98% confidence cannot be presumed to "exist outside our imaginations":
I use the phrase "demonstrated to exist" in a manner intended to distinguish imaginary things from things that are also observed to exist outside our imaginations. I'm not sure what it means to suggest an imaginary thing has been demonstrated to exist outside our imaginations with 98% confidence. An imagined thing can either be demonstrated to exist outside our imaginations or it cannot.
Mithrae wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 10:22 pm If that is your stance, fair enough, I would simply point out (as I have several times already) that the relevant distinction lies in the strength of various inferences, not in the somewhat arbitrary physical/divine semantic distinction itself. Logical consistency would require acknowledging that this "demonstrated to exist" criterion as you seem to be using it would cast similar criticism over our opinions regarding the historicity of Plato, future effects of variables like technology on society, weather in upcoming weeks etc. as it would on the occurrence of miracles, since these and many more are likewise merely best-available-explanation/inference scenarios far below a certainty threshold.
The relevant distinction lies in whether a proposed cause or outcome is strictly imaginary or can also be demonstrated to exist outside our imagination in the reality we perceive. This criterion is not problematic for the historical claim that Plato was an ancient philosopher because, of course, people who are philosophers can be demonstrated to exist outside our imagination for us to know it would be possible for ancient people like Plato to have existed and practiced philosophy. Sure, we cannot go back in time to observe a man named Plato practicing philosophy, but our understanding that the claim describes something we know can possibly exist outside our imagination (i.e. a person who practices philosophy) is sufficient for us to justifiably infer his existence. However, if the claim was that Plato could fly without the aid of technology, the inference that Plato had an ability to soar like Superman would not be justified because we have never observed such an event occur outside our imagination for us to know it would have been possible for someone like Plato to accomplish it.

This criterion applies equally well to future effects of variables like weather forecasts because rain has been demonstrated to occur under observable and measurable atmospheric conditions for us to know such an event can exist outside our imagination. As such, we can justifiably infer that a rain event will not only be possible in the coming week but highly probable given the set of known atmospheric conditions. On the other hand, if the weather forecast is that chocolate and vanilla pudding will spontaneously materialize inside a storm cloud and fall from the sky over the entire city to an average depth of three feet, the inference that this catastrophic event will occur next week would be unjustified because we have never observed such an event occur outside our imaginations for us to know it would be possible in the reality we perceive.

Post Reply