Why accept the LEAST likely explanation?

[Zzyzx]

.
Why accept the LEAST likely explanation?

If a tomb is found empty there are many possible reasons why it does not contain a body. The least likely is that the dead body came back to life and went away.

If stories claim that animals converse in human language the most likely explanation is that the stories are myths, fables, legends, etc. The least likely is that animals did actually converse with humans once upon a time.

If a person testifies that they had a "vision" or "visitation" there are many possibilities – from delusion, hallucination, overwrought emotions, dreams to outright fabrication. The least likely explanation seems to be an actual visit from a supernatural entity.

If claims are made that a "holy spirit" gives chosen people special knowledge the possibilities include that such claims are completely unfounded, that they originate from indoctrination, that they are a form of self-aggrandizement or self-deception. The least likely seems to be an actual imparting of knowledge supernaturally.

If we discover that our car has a flat tire the possibilities include that it has a hole or that someone let out air. Would we rationally think that invisible spirits flattened the tire to punish us?

If our belief system promotes the least likely answer, is it not time to reexamine our acceptance of the belief system?

[puddleglum]

[Replying to post 7 by puddleglum]

This isn't really accurate. An explanation that's physically and/or logically impossible is the least likely, and it has essentially zero chance of being true.

But are we always right when we believe something is impossible? The post following yours is an example of this. If a woman becomes pregnant the explanation that this happened by an act of God is in fact the least likely explanation because as far as we know it has happened only once in human history. Some people believe this explanation is impossible because they don't believe God exists. But if they are wrong then the explanation is unlikely but not impossible.

[Zzyzx]

.

[Replying to post 7 by puddleglum]

This isn't really accurate. An explanation that's physically and/or logically impossible is the least likely, and it has essentially zero chance of being true.

But are we always right when we believe something is impossible?

"Believe something impossible" is different from physically or logically impossible. An example of the latter is a square circle, or a married bachelor. An example of the former is "there are two suns in our solar system".

The post following yours is an example of this. If a woman becomes pregnant the explanation that this happened by an act of God is in fact the least likely explanation because as far as we know it has happened only once in human history.

We do NOT KNOW that virgin birth has ever happened. There are ancient tales that CLAIM it did. How would gospel writers who make that claim know about the virginal status of the mother?

There are other virgin birth tales in competing religions -- which likewise cannot be shown to be true.

According to one story, the Roman Emperor Augustus's mother was worshipping in the temple of Apollo when she fell asleep and was impregnated by the god [Suetonius Lives of the Caesars: Augustus 94]
Other examples of virgin born Gods

Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki
Savior Dionysus was born of the virgin Semele.
Buddha too was born of a virgin,
The old Teutonic goddess Hertha was a virgin impregnated by the heavenly Spirit and bore a son.
Scandinavian Frigga was impregnated by the All-Father Odin and bore Balder, the healer and savior of mankind.
http://www.entheology.org/pocm/pagan_or ... birth.html

Also, it is reported that about one percent of women giving birth in the US claim to be virgins. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/ ... F020131217

Some people believe this explanation is impossible because they don't believe God exists. But if they are wrong then the explanation is unlikely but not impossible.

Some people believe that virgins give birth because they believe tales in religious literature (or believe claims by new mothers).

Note: One percent of US annual births claimed to be virginal: 3,932,181 total US births divided by 100 = 39,321 virgin births per year

Why believe some tales and claims but not others? Why believe ANY of the claims?

[Man_With_A_Plan]

.
Why accept the LEAST likely explanation?

If a tomb is found empty there are many possible reasons why it does not contain a body. The least likely is that the dead body came back to life and went away.

If stories claim that animals converse in human language the most likely explanation is that the stories are myths, fables, legends, etc. The least likely is that animals did actually converse with humans once upon a time.

If a person testifies that they had a "vision" or "visitation" there are many possibilities – from delusion, hallucination, overwrought emotions, dreams to outright fabrication. The least likely explanation seems to be an actual visit from a supernatural entity.

If claims are made that a "holy spirit" gives chosen people special knowledge the possibilities include that such claims are completely unfounded, that they originate from indoctrination, that they are a form of self-aggrandizement or self-deception. The least likely seems to be an actual imparting of knowledge supernaturally.

If we discover that our car has a flat tire the possibilities include that it has a hole or that someone let out air. Would we rationally think that invisible spirits flattened the tire to punish us?

If our belief system promotes the least likely answer, is it not time to reexamine our acceptance of the belief system?

How do you propose defining "least likely" and "most likely"? By what objective standard? And why is that standard objective?

[Zzyzx]

.

How do you propose defining "least likely" and "most likely"?

I define both terms in relation to what we now know of the real world we inhabit. For instance, it is "most likely" that the Earth orbits the sun and "least likely" that the reverse is true; most likely that diseases are caused by microbes and least likely they are caused by invisible spirits; most likely that storms and droughts are conditions of the atmosphere and least likely that they are punishment for "sins", etc.

By what objective standard? And why is that standard objective?

I do not pretend to know objective standards and am very suspicious of that term (along with "universal" or "absolute"). It appears to me as though all we know is filtered through the mind(s) of humans – the definition of subjective.

Those who claim to know objective "truths" (or whatever) are asked to provide evidence that human thought is not involved.

[Man_With_A_Plan]

.

How do you propose defining "least likely" and "most likely"?

I define both terms in relation to what we now know of the real world we inhabit. For instance, it is "most likely" that the Earth orbits the sun and "least likely" that the reverse is true; most likely that diseases are caused by microbes and least likely they are caused by invisible spirits; most likely that storms and droughts are conditions of the atmosphere and least likely that they are punishment for "sins", etc.

By what objective standard? And why is that standard objective?

I do not pretend to know objective standards and am very suspicious of that term (along with "universal" or "absolute"). It appears to me as though all we know is filtered through the mind(s) of humans – the definition of subjective.

Those who claim to know objective "truths" (or whatever) are asked to provide evidence that human thought is not involved.

I agree with the principal, but I've always felt uneasy when people use "most/least unlikely" to argue something without first having a set definition. For example, many people in Marco Polo's day ridiculed his claims of Chinese cities having populations of one million plus people because no European city was anywhere near as populous. (One can argue that this example is different from a supernatural claim, but someone else can argue that the difference is only in degree.)

This is a bit off topic, but I feel that if the supernatural (however that's defined) does exist, its existence is impossible to ascertain--otherwise, we would have. (Though if we had ascertained it by natural means, would it be considered "supernatural" in any sense? Does the property of "supernatural" preclude the supernatural from being ascertained naturally?) In my opinion, claims of the supernatural will always be a matter of faith. I also believe it's incorrect to assume that, if the supernatural exists and acts upon the natural order, natural and supernatural explanations are somehow contradictory or mutually exclusive; if a theistic deity does exist and does act upon our universe, there is no way for us to objectively observe its actions or their extent without an external or otherwise objective vantage point free of the bias of being an inhabitant of the universe being acted upon.

It seems that if God does exist (and if we therefore live in a theistic universe), he can't be objectively known in a natural sense (unless he makes himself known in a natural sense). Maybe Christianity is right in proclaiming that theism will always be a matter of faith. And maybe this can be neither proven nor disproven. (Maybe a "miracle healing" can have a natural explanation yet still be an act of God. Maybe this isn't a contradiction anymore than to say that the acts of a denizen of a virtual reality world upon his environment can be attributed both to him and to the omniscient omnipotent computer maintaining his world; the denizen may throw a rock, and the passing of momentum from his hand to the rock is a perfect and complete explanation for why the rock is moving, but it doesn't rule out or make unecessary the role of the computer.)

If I may go off topic again, since Christianity teaches that God wants people to live by faith and not evidence, the implication is that, if Christianity is true, we'll never know it in a "scientific" or evidence-based way. It'll always remain a matter of faith.

[onewithhim]

.
Why accept the LEAST likely explanation?

If a tomb is found empty there are many possible reasons why it does not contain a body. The least likely is that the dead body came back to life and went away.

If stories claim that animals converse in human language the most likely explanation is that the stories are myths, fables, legends, etc. The least likely is that animals did actually converse with humans once upon a time.

From a Christian perspective these things are not in question. It’s not about what is the most likely answer. The bible already tells us about those things and because we believe the bible to be the word of God, then we believe them.

If a person testifies that they had a "vision" or "visitation" there are many possibilities – from delusion, hallucination, overwrought emotions, dreams to outright fabrication. The least likely explanation seems to be an actual visit from a supernatural entity.

We of course have to be a little sceptical here. Any Christian would be. The mind can be easily fooled and things that happen at night can indeed be just dreams. Dreams can seem very vivid and real. Any Christian who automatically believes another Christian when they say they had a vision or visitation is being rather gullible. Admittedly many do believe reputable Christians when they claim things like this. I too believed those church members I trusted, particularly pastors and visiting evangelists.

As a Christian though you are open to the possibility of these things because the bible contains such events and the bible is of course the word of God, so therefore must be true.

If claims are made that a "holy spirit" gives chosen people special knowledge the possibilities include that such claims are completely unfounded, that they originate from indoctrination, that they are a form of self-aggrandizement or self-deception. The least likely seems to be an actual imparting of knowledge supernaturally.

Such claims of having the holy spirit should indeed be taken with a grain of salt. Even as a Christian you have to consider the fact that the person who claims to have the holy spirit may actually just be looking at it from his own perspective, not the holy spirit’s.

If we discover that our car has a flat tire the possibilities include that it has a hole or that someone let out air. Would we rationally think that invisible spirits flattened the tire to punish us?

No, we would look for natural explanations. Anything that happens that seems extra-ordinary, even a Christian should first look for a natural explanation. If there is none, then maybe we can consider a supernatural explanation.

If our belief system promotes the least likely answer, is it not time to reexamine our acceptance of the belief system?

Indeed, but a Christian must look to the bible for their ultimate guidance. If the bible… the word of God… tells us something happened a certain way, who are we to argue with it?

Wouldn't we ask why a person would believe the Bible? What are his reasons for believing what it says?

Also, if we can believe that God created everything, then why wouldn't it be logical to believe that he could part the Red Sea or raise Jesus from the dead?

Finally, some of the things the churches of Christendom teach can be dismantled by doing an intense study of everything the Bible says, not just verses here and there. E.g.: "Christian" churches say that Jesus is God, according to John 1:1. But what about John 20:17 that shows Jesus saying that the Father is HIS God (as well as ours)? Is someone leaving out a whole lot of Bible information (that would be worth analyzing)?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 4 by OnceConvinced]

Any Christian who automatically believes another Christian when they say they had a vision or visitation is being rather gullible. Admittedly many do believe reputable Christians when they claim things like this. I too believed those church members I trusted, particularly pastors and visiting evangelists.

The movie "Let there be Light", starring Kevin Sorbo, has a scene where the protagonist goes to see some famous Christian theologian or pastor or something. Mr Protag walks up to him (as far as I can remember, the two are not actually acquainted in any way), and tells him he had a vision of his dead son. The other man accepts this without question. He doesn't ask questions, he doesn't utter any scepticism as to whether or not this happened. Even if one believes people can see their actual dead loved ones in dreams or visions, this is not the same thing as believing every Tom, Dick and Harry who says so.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 9 by Zzyzx]

A third, and least likely, is that she was impregnated by an invisible supernatural spirit.

I would actually say impossible, or rather the odds are incalculable, because this proposal does not have any explanation of the actual mechanism involved.
The first and most likely mechanism (sexual intercourse with a male) is well understood as to the mechanism. The male ejaculates sperm into her vagina, one sperm cell makes contact with one of her eggs, and over a period of roughly nine months, a baby is formed. The baby has genetic material that can be matched, one half from his mother, and the other half from his father.
The second method is very similar to the first, only an artificial method of impregnation is used, instead of a penis.

The third, though? A supernatural spirit? What exactly is the method? The mechanism? What exactly goes on? Does the spirit ejaculate into the woman? How can it, when it has no corporeal form? Is there material used of some sort? What about DNA? Wouldn't the resulting child only have 23 chromosomes, those from his mother? Or does he just somehow have 46? If so, how did he get what would usually be from the father? Does it carry sperm in a jar? Does it conjure it right then and there? Does it use some other material? Does it plant an already pre-formed zygote in the mother, who would then technically just be a surrogate?
What I'm saying here is that the "supernatural spirit" method should not actually be used, should not even be considered as to its likelihood, unless one can actually explain it. It's essentially gibberish to my eyes, as no-one knows how an invisible, non-corporeal spirit could even do anything, what with them lacking any sort of senses or appendages or limbs. If a Christian says to me "I believe Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit", I don't know what that means, and I highly suspect...neither does he. He doesn't know what it means either, but he believes it nevertheless.