The Tension of Faith

Sorry for yet another second reply to one of your messages, but you again added text after I already replied. I didn't arrive at the same conclusion you did, and I never gave any indication that I did. While I'm 100% certain that the imaginary doesn't exist, I can't satisfy your request for a mathematical proof. It's make believe.--Percy

I guess it doesn't seem contradictory to you to believe you have evidence for something that doesn't exist. For the sake of discussion let's say that's not a contradiction. But obviously there's a problem there. You can't have evidence for the existence of the non-existent. What term would you use? Ah, I see, your arguments are arguments and my arguments are opinions. How convenient for you.--Percy

This claim is different than 'we can be {100%} certain that John's accounts of eyewitnesses to miracles are fictional.'If you just want to say 'I personally have no doubt that they are fictional' I could have just retorted 'your opinion doesn't make it so'. But since I was making a mathematical argument, and you responded as you did, I criticized your position for its absurdity.Since opinion is worth nothing, and it's all you seem to have, I think that concludes the discussion.You can either refute the mathematical argument regarding eye witnesses or you can say 'I personally don't believe them, I personally think they are made up, I personally think they are fictitious.'. Given the content of your posts so far, I suspect you are going to stick to the latter. And thus you have no argument ultimately but incredulity, which is entirely unconvincing.

Unfortunately that isn't true at all. You have many times said that you don't believe John's evidence simply because you know miracles can't happen, since they violate the laws of physics. John's statement that he wrote down descriptions of miraculous acts of Christ in order to give good reason for people to believe in salvation through Him, is the kind of thing only an honest real person wouild say, and the evidence he gave is more than sufficient for belief, and yet you don't believe it, because your belief is not based on evidence but on personal prejudice.

I don't think its contradictory to believe there exists evidence for something I don't believe exists. That may or may not be so. It's not material though since it has not been established that miracles are non-existent. You haven't presented an argument. It has all come down to 'It's made up, its make believe, its a fantasy....'. That's not an argument, that's your opinion. Feel free to show me the argument since I've clearly missed it if you have anything more than that.

Yeh yeh yeh but we know Santa Claus exists as a fiction at least and there is lots of evidence for various versions of such a character in Europe down the centuries. There is plenty of evidence for the endurance of this character in various cultural contexts. Yes this fiction may have been based originally on the fourth century Greek Bishop Nicholas but that;s the extent of any correspondence with reality. In any case we're not proving a nonexistence, we're proving the existence of an enduring fiction, in many guises in such a way as to clearly distinguish it from the Gospel of John's reports of miracles. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, it's the same claim. I've employed different terms at different times (miracles are made up, miracles aren't real, miracles are make believe, miracles are imaginary, miracles don't exist), and of course there can be no eyewitnesses to that that doesn't exist, so it's been the same claim all along. And I criticized your thinking that you could approach the issue mathematically for its absurdity, so we're even. I think misapplications of math are their own refutation. Your math is just your way of expressing your own personal opinions, with no legitimate application to reality. Says the person who thinks he has mathematical proof of evidence for miracles.--Percy

That is certainly one angle. You just have to show it is true. I've presented plenty of examples regarding the impact of witness reports on probability. Coin flipping, basement wettings. Are they misapplications of mathematics? How? Is it just your opinion, or do you have some basis upon which to say this? Then show this is so. Your opinion does not make it so. I arrived at my opinion through analysis, including mathematical one. Show the error or admit you cannot. Repeating yourself is pointless.

But John doesn't have evidence. All he has is stories of supposed eyewitnesses to impossible events. That seems a bit naive.--Percy

There's that fluidity of expression again. Back in your Message 812 you gave me the impression you agreed with my assessment that miracles are made up: Back to the present: There's no evidence for miracles, and you can't prove something doesn't exist. You haven't presented an argument, either, let alone evidence. If miracles aren't imaginary then you should be able to provide some evidence. Your opinion that John is evidence of miracles is just your opinion. Your claim to have proven mathematically that John is evidence of miracles is just silly.--Percy

I'm confident I am being as precise as one can be expected to be. I agreed that it is my belief that miracles are made up. Entirely consistent with when I said "I don't think its contradictory to believe there exists evidence for something I don't believe exists.". That is - I don't believe miracles occur, but I do believe there is evidence that supports (but not proves) their occurrence. Thank you for conceding you haven't presented an argument. Do you need me to repeat mine yet again? Here is the less rough, and more general argument:There are at least 3 keys to a witness statement.P(W) - probability that the Witness was actually a witness
P(T) - probability that the witness is Truthfully recounting as they remember things
P(M) - probability that the witness is not a significantly Mistaken.P(R) - the probability the witness can be Relied upon - the probability their attestations are true.The probability of all three things being true is P(R)P(R) = P(W) * P(T) * P(M){A} If either P(W),P(T) or P(M) are 0, the claimed witness cannot be relied upon at all and is not therefore evidential.{B} If they are all 1, we are obligated to believe the witness and this would be the strongest possible evidence ever.I argue that given our position of imperfect knowledge, we can never say {A} or {B} is true.{C} If P(W),P(T) and P(M) are between 0 and 1 (not inclusive), this means that necessarily P(R) is nonzero.If P(R) is nonzero there is some chance that the witness is saying true things about the world.The P(H) is the probability of the hypothesis that the witness is affirming through their statement/attestation whatever. The arguments above apply and we can state this probability is nonzero. In English: The probability of the hypothesis given the witness is the probability of the hypothesis AND probability witness' reliability over the probability of the witnesses reliability.Therefore iF P(H) and P(R) are nonzero P(H|R) is greater than P(H)Given that something is evidence if it increases the probability of H being true, the witness statement is evidence, even for very small vales of P(R).That's my argument. To say it isn't an argument is absurd. Here are three possible lines of attack

1. The conditions describe in {A} are the case - You tried this attack but were unable to support it. You acknowledged that even being asked to support it is absurd.
2. The maths is wrong - certainly possible. Please show the error.
3. The definition of evidence is faulty - I recommend this one. It would lead us down an interesting path of discussion. If this is wrong, then what is right? Is there any objective way of determining what counts as evidence? If evidence is subjective, as you have hinted at before, then it seems you lose the overall argument. If it is objective, how can we determine what is evidence?

I provided a mathematical argument that you remain welcome to tackle. And despite my numerous invitations for you to tackle this 'silly' argument has been met with you just repeating your opinion about its silliness, fantasticallness or whatever. You can scream 'But that's absurd!' all you like but it won't turn into a refutation.I haven't claimed to have proven mathematically that John is evidence. I have given a mathematically based argument to show you what I mean when I say John is evidence. If evidence is that which increases the probability of a hypothesis being true, I think the case I have made is strong. There are numerous ways to go about showing the argument is problematic, but you seem unwilling to engage in any in depth argument on the matter and you just want to stick with a simple-minded analysis (or naive or 'street' or colloquial or whatever). And that's fine if that's what you want to do - but at least acknowledge that. I was hoping that through an adversarial methodology we could progress to an interesting and meaningful exchange.I've tried a variety of ways to encourage to engage in deeper thought on the matter, but I think it's quite clear this is never going to happen. If your response continues to be surface level thinking then I'll leave this post as my conclusion unless another person would like to take up the discussion.

I don't recall questioning your math. Your "mathematical analysis" of John was trivial arithmetic rendered invalid by association with the unsupported assumption that the probability of something, even the imaginary or impossible, can never be zero. Your "analysis" that concluded that John is evidence of miracles is based upon an array of questionable assertions about testimony, attestation, eyewitnesses, etc.--Percy

I believe you're confident - arrogant one might almost say - your manner of expression makes this very clear. No. As I said in my previous post, your error isn't in your simple arithmetic but in your assumption that nothing can have a probability of zero, not even the imaginary or the impossible. I've rebutted this previously. One doesn't refute the absurd. One merely points out the absurdity. At heart your claim that John is evidence isn't "mathematically based" but is just the unsupported assertion that p>0. Of course you do. That's why you feel justified in lacing your post with insult and denigration, e.g.: I think the lack of progress has a simpler explanation. You think John is evidence of miracles, even though you concede that all you've done is "given a mathematically based argument to show you what I mean when I say John is evidence." I disagree that you've done even this much, and I think John on miracles is typical religious mumbo jumbo with no basis in fact. Until we find some common ground regarding John as evidence of miracles, progress will be stymied. I don't think bullying is the answer.--Percy

All I propose is that we should be good to each other. That's something we should be doing with or without any religious considerations, with or without any God. It isn't fiction. There is no evidence. I don't know why you're so fixated on evidence that you pretend to have it when you don't.

Sounds as if you agree with ringo in my ongoing argument that absence of evidence=probability of zero.Your logic would have God framed in the realm of the imaginary or impossible, apparently.My argument is that belief requires no evidence and is theoretically possible.The more people who share the belief, the more likely that the probability is not 0%. Right? Or am I committing a fallacy in my logic?