Miracle Probablity?

[Michael R. Jordan]

Hello,

I am working on a historical essay that explores the miracles within the life on Antony and the life of Benedict. Considering this essay, I am toying with the idea of arguing the miracles within their recorded lives did not likely happen and inferring the past from the present, I would argue that it is far more plausible that such men suffered schizophrenia, like 1% of our populace today.

Yet, to do so, wouldn’t be necessary for me to have the probability of miracle to happen? Could I work out some probability equation such like was done within the Ehrman-Craig debate?

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf

[Toto]

Considered from a Baysian point of view, the probability of a miracle has to be taken as 0. Modern scientists have been conducting experiments for centuries, and have never yet observed a miracle - so even if you started with the idea that a miracle is possible, each experiment over the past several hundred years provides more evidence that a miracle has not occurred and is not possible.

Practically every example of modern scholarship is based on the idea that miracles cannot and do not occur.

[EarlOfLade]

Miracles == Wishful thinking
probability of miracles == ZERO

[andrewcriddle]

In Charles Kingsley's book The Hermits online at http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/hrmt10.txt
there is an interesting but sceptical discussion of miracles in the lives of the desert hermits.

It is the section beginning After such a fantastic story as this of Simeon

Andrew Criddle

[one allegiance]

So you would argue that thousands of people hallucinated at the SAME time and all of those who hallucinated saw the SAME thing..?

[Amaleq13]

So you would argue that thousands of people hallucinated at the SAME time and all of those who hallucinated saw the SAME thing..?

No, what actually happens is that the differing details of the individual delusions tend to become homogenized over time after hearing the reports of others. ETA: Or the experience of a single individual spreads to others like a mental virus (ie "collective hysteria").

[Decypher]

Yet, to do so, wouldn’t be necessary for me to have the probability of miracle to happen?


I'm not sure it is really possible to do. Miracles are something outside of the ordinary course of nature, so I don't think you can really argue from what happens inside of the ordinary course of nature.

I believe it would have to come down to the probability of the existence of God, and the probability that he would have the kind of character or made the choice to perform miracles or create in such a way as to allow for them.

[EarlOfLade]

I'm not sure it is really possible to do. Miracles are something outside of the ordinary course of nature, so I don't think you can really argue from what happens inside of the ordinary course of nature.

I believe it would have to come down to the probability of the existence of God, and the probability that he would have the kind of character or made the choice to perform miracles or create in such a way as to allow for them.

Which has a probability of ZERO too!

[Solo]

Hello,

I am working on a historical essay that explores the miracles within the life on Antony and the life of Benedict. Considering this essay, I am toying with the idea of arguing the miracles within their recorded lives did not likely happen and inferring the past from the present, I would argue that it is far more plausible that such men suffered schizophrenia, like 1% of our populace today.

Yet, to do so, wouldn’t be necessary for me to have the probability of miracle to happen? Could I work out some probability equation such like was done within the Ehrman-Craig debate?

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf

Most miracles of the New Testament look very much like symbolic representation of changes in perception and cognition during ecstasies, and were not read by the earliest community as "real events". For the issues with the historical use of contemporary medical labels see my review of Koenraad Elst. You might find useful my description of intruding paradoxical mentation into waking states (as in hypnagogia) as a key to the story of the fig tree.

Best,
Jiri

[Bobinius]

Considered from a Baysian point of view, the probability of a miracle has to be taken as 0. Modern scientists have been conducting experiments for centuries, and have never yet observed a miracle - so even if you started with the idea that a miracle is possible, each experiment over the past several hundred years provides more evidence that a miracle has not occurred and is not possible.

Practically every example of modern scholarship is based on the idea that miracles cannot and do not occur.

No, I don't think that to assign a prior probability of 0 to a miraculous event is correct, from a scientific pov. You do not need evidence that something is not possible, possible in a logical sense. Only logically impossible events have a probability of 0. Secondly, whatever evidence we would gather, miracles would remain at 0 probability. Which again is not scientifically correct.It would mean to nullify any possibility of evidence for miracles (and for God) to appear. On what basis do you sustain that?

Methodological naturalism is needed for the scientific study of events. But that does not imply that miracles are logically impossible. They would become integrated in the universe, and their relation with the world would become part of the natural structure of the world, and like this, they would lose their "miraculous" attribute.

[Solo]

No, I don't think that to assign a prior probability of 0 to a miraculous event is correct, from a scientific pov. You do not need evidence that something is not possible, possible in a logical sense. Only logically impossible events have a probability of 0. Secondly, whatever evidence we would gather, miracles would remain at 0 probability. Which again is not scientifically correct.It would mean to nullify any possibility of evidence for miracles (and for God) to appear. On what basis do you sustain that?

Methodological naturalism is needed for the scientific study of events. But that does not imply that miracles are logically impossible. They would become integrated in the universe, and their relation with the world would become part of the natural structure of the world, and like this, they would lose their "miraculous" attribute.

It all depends on how you describe a miracle. Semantically, "miracles" happen, if you mean "outcomes with very low probability". Eg., it is possible that dead may come back to life one day through cryogenics, if the body is preserved before the biochem processes of decomposition become irreversible.

On the other hand, it is crystally clear to a person with modicum of rationality that the "miracles" in the NT are self-described wish-fulfilments. They are denials of reality, at once the metaphores of, and the invitations to, hallucination through self-hypnosis.

Jiri

[Toto]

Originally Posted by Toto
Considered from a Baysian point of view, the probability of a miracle has to be taken as 0. Modern scientists have been conducting experiments for centuries, and have never yet observed a miracle - so even if you started with the idea that a miracle is possible, each experiment over the past several hundred years provides more evidence that a miracle has not occurred and is not possible.

Practically every example of modern scholarship is based on the idea that miracles cannot and do not occur.No, I don't think that to assign a prior probability of 0 to a miraculous event is correct, from a scientific pov. You do not need evidence that something is not possible, possible in a logical sense. Only logically impossible events have a probability of 0. Secondly, whatever evidence we would gather, miracles would remain at 0 probability. Which again is not scientifically correct.It would mean to nullify any possibility of evidence for miracles (and for God) to appear. On what basis do you sustain that?

Methodological naturalism is needed for the scientific study of events. But that does not imply that miracles are logically impossible. They would become integrated in the universe, and their relation with the world would become part of the natural structure of the world, and like this, they would lose their "miraculous" attribute.

Sorry, I did not explain myself fully.

Start out with the assumption that the probability of a miracle is 50%, which is what you do if you lack any information.

Do a scientific experiment of any sort. Did a miracle occur? Nope. So you revise your estimate of the probability of a miracle downward based on this new information, say to 24%

After two centuries of experiments and revisions, the probability of a miracle approaches 0 to the point where it might as well be 0.

That's why Randi can feel safe about his $1 million challenge.

[Bobinius]

Sorry, I did not explain myself fully.

Start out with the assumption that the probability of a miracle is 50%, which is what you do if you lack any information.

Do a scientific experiment of any sort. Did a miracle occur? Nope. So you revise your estimate of the probability of a miracle downward based on this new information, say to 24%

After two centuries of experiments and revisions, the probability of a miracle approaches 0 to the point where it might as well be 0.

That's why Randi can feel safe about his $1 million challenge.

Yeah, sounds more reasonable. Of course, you can never reach 0. The only problem is that theists are going to spend some time arguing about the real occurence of miracles. And hey, you cannot test God! What did you expect? God does not perform a miracle whenever you want. :D

[Decypher]

Sorry, I did not explain myself fully.

Start out with the assumption that the probability of a miracle is 50%, which is what you do if you lack any information.

Do a scientific experiment of any sort. Did a miracle occur? Nope. So you revise your estimate of the probability of a miracle downward based on this new information, say to 24%

After two centuries of experiments and revisions, the probability of a miracle approaches 0 to the point where it might as well be 0.

That's why Randi can feel safe about his $1 million challenge.

If by "miracle" we are thinking of a direct act of God, why would God necessarily choose to perform one during "any scientific experiment"? or repeated experiments?

[gstafleu]

The probability of a miracle is undefined. Probabilities are defined on universes of possible outcomes. If my universe consists of 75 white and 25 red marbles, I can define the P(white) as 0.75. But we don't have a universe with observed miracles from which to calculate a possibility. End of argument. (And this whole business of "the probability that God exists" is pure bogus as well.)

Unless you want to be thermodynamic about it. Thermodynamically water could indeed change to wine. The probability of that is probably (:)) less than one in N, where N is the number of particles in the universe.

Look up some thermodynamics, quantum mechanics and collapse to irreversible states if you really want to pursue this line.

Gerard

[darstec]

Yeah, sounds more reasonable. Of course, you can never reach 0. The only problem is that theists are going to spend some time arguing about the real occurence of miracles. And hey, you cannot test God! What did you expect? God does not perform a miracle whenever you want. :D Yet the bible says otherwise. Remember the passage, ask and you shall receive?" It doesn't say , "ask and you will get an answer which could be maybe or no." And that particular passage says nothing about faith. Christianity's god as failed to deliver numerous times. Maybe that Joshua character knew no more about god than one's dog.

[Decypher]

(And this whole business of "the probability that God exists" is pure bogus as well.)


Could you expand on that?

If there is very little chance of God existing, then there is very little chance of miracles. It seems to me that if there is a high chance of God existing then miracles become more plausible. This seems legit to me. (Of course, it may be difficult to work out the probability of a Deity existing.)

[el-pepo]

Miracles specific to Christianity are everywhere (I can't speak for other religions). Here's one of many from Medjugorje.

http://www.visionsofjesuschrist.com/weeping360.htm

Now sit back and watch the well-rehearsed arguments that roll in!

[SpellStitchedNerd]

You mean the fact that the article named no doctors who decreed the leg broken and almost needing amputation, no named witness that saw the apparition as well, references to mysterious strangers, no named nurse who exclaimed "you are healed", no dates or names of clinics where this help occured? Basically nothing that can be corroborated? Yep, we're pretty well rehearsed at this line of arguement.

[hallq]

To the original poster: I wouldn't go into the mathematics. In the Craig-Ehrman debate Craig basically used it as a smoke screen to confuse both Ehrman and the audience. If you slow down and look carefully at the equation (which is hard to do in the heat of a debate), you discover that according to it, the theory with the higher prior probability will have the higher posterior probability, so long as both theories guarantee the given evidence will appear.

For your essay, I think that given the lack of modern miracles and prevelance of fraud, legend, and delusion, you can safely argue that a false report has a higher probability than a true miracle. Your main concern should be considering a variety of possible source of false reports and trying to determine which fits this situation best.

[driver8]

Miracles specific to Christianity are everywhere (I can't speak for other religions). Here's one of many from Medjugorje.

http://www.visionsofjesuschrist.com/weeping360.htm

Now sit back and watch the well-rehearsed arguments that roll in!

...Char Vance, programming and promotions director of Focus Worldwide Catholic Network.

http://www.monksofadoration.org/rg/rg1.html

I'm sure she had no motivation to suffer a miracle, nor promote one.