tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post1280084180853411497..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Reply to Mark Frank on abusing probability theoryVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38534146482719742792010-12-12T23:49:32.180-07:002010-12-12T23:49:32.180-07:00"Claims for miracles or clairvoyance are equi..."Claims for miracles or clairvoyance are equivalent to claiming it is possible for one to roll a seven on a six sided die."<br /><br />Incorrect.<br /><br /><em>"That's what it is to be a miracle."</em><br /><br />Nope.<br /><br />There is, for I know, a vanishingly small probability that the items in my bedroom will spontaneously rearrange themselves to form the words of John 3:16.<br /><br />Yet if this happened, which would seem the more reasonable response? "What a freak of quantum probabilities!" or "You know, I think Somebody's trying to tell me something..."James M. Jensen IIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17424548803826283101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63256103229402554452010-12-05T03:31:45.553-07:002010-12-05T03:31:45.553-07:00Are you saying that god can't do things that a...<i>Are you saying that god can't do things that are logically impossible? Heretic!</i><br /><br />I just wanted to say that if you really believe that saying "God can't do the logically impossible" is heresy, you're hilariously ignorant and should probably hush up. You don't want to be "that atheist", the one that makes all the other atheists cringe whenever they talk. ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25744322308416911652010-12-04T11:34:05.337-07:002010-12-04T11:34:05.337-07:00A part of it has to do with how it fits into a bro...A part of it has to do with how it fits into a broader account of Jesus' purpose on earth. Lewis's Miracles: A Preliminary Study is a must read here; not the famous third chapter that is the locus classicus for the AFR, but his Miracles of the Old Creation/Miracles of the New Creation discussion in the latter part of the book. <br /><br />I don't think it's just arbitrary, or just canonical authority, that leads me to believe in water into wine but not clay pigeons turning into live pigeons.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68945146791457997392010-12-04T03:03:10.711-07:002010-12-04T03:03:10.711-07:00However, we don't have any good way of measuri...<em>However, we don't have any good way of measuring what the "prior" side of Bayes' theorem ought to be, and I presume that it can differ amongst reasonable people.</em><br /><br />Of course it is hard and may not be possible to prove one set of beliefs to be correct - but that doesn't mean you can totally ignore the prior beliefs (or the gremlins always become the logical conclusion) or that you cannot have a rational discussion about the strength of prior belief.<br /><br />Think of this way. If modern professional magician were to turn wine into water in front of your nose (and an invited audience)would you seriously think he had performed a miracle or would you assume there was a trick which you just hadn't worked out? I assume your answer is the second. <br /><br />Now compare this to the account of Jesus doing the same trick. Your observational evidence for Jesus having turned wine into water is far weaker. But you believe the miracle is the correct explanation because of your prior beliefs.Mark Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64445590397033776682010-12-03T18:02:11.696-07:002010-12-03T18:02:11.696-07:00Heretic? Good heavens. That definition goes at lea...Heretic? Good heavens. That definition goes at least back to Thomas Aquinas. It's more Catholic than the Pope, and Protestants buy it also.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35622414829625831712010-12-03T17:00:30.786-07:002010-12-03T17:00:30.786-07:00Claims for miracles or clairvoyance are equivalent...Claims for miracles or clairvoyance are equivalent to claiming it is possible for one to roll a seven on a six sided die.<br /><br />I am sure that somewhere there are gambler tales of miraculous dice that did physically impossible things. That's what it is to be a miracle.<br /><br />Are you saying that god can't do things that are logically impossible? Heretic!brendahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14544680532155804010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26270167905670606932010-12-03T16:08:06.683-07:002010-12-03T16:08:06.683-07:00But that's a logical impossibility. Miracles o...But that's a logical impossibility. Miracles or clairvoyance aren't logically impossible.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29135979346576739472010-12-03T15:36:41.259-07:002010-12-03T15:36:41.259-07:00I am absolutely certain that Bayesean probability ...I am absolutely certain that Bayesean probability theory will never apply to the odds of rolling a seven on a six sided die.brendahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14544680532155804010noreply@blogger.com