| GeoffreyCharles |
| Posted 05/27/11 at 02:56 PM | Reply with quote #1 |
|
| Hey, I'm a skeptic, and I'd like some comments on the following analogy:
Story
John goes to a magic show, and the magician does an amazing trick. Then, the magician asks John how the trick was done. John has four possible explanations:
Explanations
1. It was magic. 2. It was luck. 3. It was something with a natural explanation, and I know how it was done. 4. It was something with a natural explanation, and I don't know how it was done.
Reasoning
1. John doesn't think it was magic because of its low probability. 2. It probably wasn't luck, either. 3. John can't explain the trick because he doesn't know how it was done.
Conclusion
Therefore, John's best explanation is (4) that it was something with a natural explanation, and he doesn't know how it was done.
Resurrection
Now, regarding the alleged resurrection:
John reads the New Testament. From it are derived some minimal historical facts regarding the resurrection. WLC asks John to explain. John has four possible explanations:
Explanations
1. It was a miracle. 2. It was luck. 3. It was something with a natural explanation, and I know what happened. 4. It was something with a natural explanation, and I don't know what happened.
Reasoning
1. John doesn't think it was a miracle because of its low probability. 2. It probably wasn't luck, either. 3. John can't explain the facts, because he doesn't know what happened.
Conclusion
Therefore, John's best explanation is (4) that it was something with a natural explanation, and he doesn't know what happened.
What do you think? |
| Loading... | |
| emailestthoume |
| Posted 05/27/11 at 04:14 PM | Reply with quote #2 |
|
It seems like the whole scenario presupposes that God doing a miracle is as likely to be real as a magician doing a magic show. Very few people believe in magic, but about 2 billion people believe that there is a Christian God. Further background information must be taken into account. If you assume off the bat that there is no God, then your argument is much stronger, but I see no justification for this assumption. The probability that God exists must be taken into account. If Dr. Craig's other arguments make God's existence significantly more probably than magic being real, then this would pose a further problem for your scenario, since it assumes only a naturalistic explanation could be have sort of less-than-winning-the-lottery-probability of happening. (I like hyphens...)
|
| Loading... | |
| GeoffreyCharles |
| Posted 05/28/11 at 02:39 AM | Reply with quote #3 |
|
I'll concede the existence of a god. I'll also concede WLC's four facts:
1. Jesus’ burial 2. the discovery of his empty tomb 3. his alleged post-mortem appearances 4. the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.
Therefore, I'm basically conceding most of WLC's argument for the resurrection except for his assertion that it is a strong argument.
Let's turn this into a magic analogy again.
Lady Cut in Half
I'll concede the existence of magic.
I'll also concede the magician's four facts (hypothetical examples):
1. the lady was put into a box and a real saw cut through it 2. the halves of the box were pulled apart and space was between them 3. many people witnessed it 4. some people believed it was magic
The best explanation of this trick is that it was something with a natural explanation, yet I don't know how it was done. This is a better explanation than saying it was magic.
Same for the Resurrection
Even after the concessions, the best explanation is that something natural happened, yet I don't know exactly what. This is a better explanation than saying it was a miracle because the probability is still low.
What do you think?
|
| Loading... | |
| emailestthoume |
| Posted 05/29/11 at 12:32 AM | Reply with quote #4 |
|
If you grant the existence of God, it seems like "God raised Jesus from the dead," if you understand the significance of the four facts, would be a good conclusion. I find the analogy of magic rather unhelpful, and though I don't think you are doing this intentionally, deceptive, for it is synonymous with trickery. That's why we say, "magic tricks." Magicians, in the common use of the term, have it as their job to pull of elaborate illusions. Perhaps you could either find a different example, and, if you want to hold on to the point, state more explicitly what your argument is.
|
| Loading... | |
| GeoffreyCharles |
| Posted 05/29/11 at 03:41 AM | Reply with quote #5 |
|
Quote: If you grant the existence of God, it seems like "God raised Jesus from the dead," if you understand the significance of the four facts, would be a good conclusion.
Well, it depends on the god. The existence of the god of deism would not make the resurrection a good conclusion, because miracles are still improbable, and the four facts are not strong enough.
Quote: I find the analogy of magic rather unhelpful, and though I don't think you are doing this intentionally, deceptive, for it is synonymous with trickery. That's why we say, "magic tricks." Magicians, in the common use of the term, have it as their job to pull of elaborate illusions.
Fair enough. My main points were to show that:
(1) in both the case of the magic trick and the alleged resurrection, one's ignorance of the details (WLC's four facts are not many details-- that's why I compared them to the few facts we know about the trick of cutting a lady in half) does not mean that magic and miracles are good explanations. And
(2) one does not have to posit a specific alternative explanation of the magic trick or the alleged resurrection in order to conclude that it probably wasn't magic or a miracle, respectively. This is because an unknown but natural explanation is better than a magical or miraculous one due to their low probability and the weak evidence.
Quote: Perhaps you could either find a different example, and, if you want to hold on to the point, state more explicitly what your argument is.
Basically, the conclusion that the alleged resurrection was a miracle is worse than the conclusion that something unknown and natural happened, because the probability of the resurrection is low (even after conceding the existence of god, i.e. the god of deism) and the evidence is not strong.
What do you think? |
| Loading... | |
| forthelord |
| Posted 05/29/11 at 10:32 AM | Reply with quote #6 |
|
In all honesty, I've gone back to the drawing board in terms of apologetics. My mind changes a lot when it comes to these arguments so I don't necessarily endorse everything I will write.
Quote: Well, it depends on the god. The existence of the god of deism would not make the resurrection a good conclusion, because miracles are still improbable, and the four facts are not strong enough.
We would need a God that is that is atleast very powerful and very loving--both of which have been argued for through various arguments. Now, granting the existence of that kind of being, the prior probability of Jesus' resurrection equals the probability that such a God would raise Jesus from the dead. Since the probability of anyone doing anything is equal to their capacity to perform the task coupled with whether they would want to do that task, the only area where the prior would be low for the resurrection is whether or not God would want to do something like we find in Christianity.
Becoming incarnate would allow God to reconcile man to Himself, provide a solution to the problem of evil, teach us correct moral truths, and identify with our suffering. Is this something an omnibenevolent God would want to do? Well, it seems like it is at least one possibility.
Quote: in both the case of the magic trick and the alleged resurrection, one's ignorance of the details (WLC's four facts are not many details-- that's why I compared them to the few facts we know about the trick of cutting a lady in half) does not mean that magic and miracles are good explanations.
If those facts truly are facts, then no magic trick could account for them. If a man is dead, there is no magic trick that could bring him back. In reality, this objection is a skepticism that these really are facts. But then I would inquire as to what grounds do you have to reject these facts?
At the end of the day, I think your point has a lot of force. For we are not directly dealing with the historical facts, we are dealing with testimony to these historical facts. Although each fact may be more probable than not on historical grounds, I'm not so sure ancient history is reliable enough to establish even humdrum facts with a high degree of certainty. Although each fact may be more probable than not, I think Plantinga's point about the problem of dwindling probabilities has some force here.
|
| Loading... | |
| GeoffreyCharles |
| Posted 05/29/11 at 02:44 PM | Reply with quote #7 |
|
Quote: We would need a God that is that is at least very powerful and very loving--both of which have been argued for through various arguments. Now, granting the existence of that kind of being, the prior probability of Jesus' resurrection equals the probability that such a God would raise Jesus from the dead. Since the probability of anyone doing anything is equal to their capacity to perform the task coupled with whether they would want to do that task, the only area where the prior would be low for the resurrection is whether or not God would want to do something like we find in Christianity.
I agree that if we knew all of these things, then the prior probability of the resurrection would be higher. But, I have not conceded any of these things, because they are not a part of WLC's four facts.
Therefore, the existence of the god of deism and the four facts do not make a strong argument for the resurrection.
Quote: Becoming incarnate would allow God to reconcile man to Himself, provide a solution to the problem of evil, teach us correct moral truths, and identify with our suffering. Is this something an omnibenevolent God would want to do? Well, it seems like it is at least one possibility.
I agree, but I have not conceded that any of these things are true problems, nor that the resurrection would provide solutions to them.
Therefore, it would need to be argued that man is not reconciled with God, that the incarnation would solve that problem specifically, etc. Then, the probability of the resurrection would be higher.
But because these things have a low probability, the argument for the resurrection remains weak. Quote: If those facts truly are facts, then no magic trick could account for them.
I think that some natural explanation, perhaps unknown to us, could account for them because the facts are not strong and the resurrection is improbable.
Quote: If a man is dead, there is no magic trick that could bring him back.
I have not conceded that Jesus came back from the dead. The closest thing to this that I have conceded is that Jesus allegedly appeared to people after this crucifixion. I conceded this only.
It does not follow necessarily that Jesus rose from the dead due to alleged appearances of him.
There are other natural explanations, perhaps unknown to us, that could account for this.
Quote: In reality, this objection is a skepticism that these really are facts. But then I would inquire as to what grounds do you have to reject these facts?
I accept the four facts. But, they do not make a strong case for the resurrection because it has a low probability.
There are probably natural explanations, perhaps unknown to us, that account for the four facts, because the four facts are not strong and the resurrection is improbable. Quote: At the end of the day, I think your point has a lot of force. For we are not directly dealing with the historical facts, we are dealing with testimony to these historical facts. Although each fact may be more probable than not on historical grounds, I'm not so sure ancient history is reliable enough to establish even humdrum facts with a high degree of certainty. Although each fact may be more probable than not, I think Plantinga's point about the problem of dwindling probabilities has some force here.
I agree with the problem of dwindling probabilities.
Therefore, without more evidence and helpful background information, the existence of the god of deism and the four facts do not make a strong argument for the resurrection.
Thoughts? |
| Loading... | |
| emailestthoume |
| Posted 05/29/11 at 05:22 PM | Reply with quote #8 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by GeoffreyCharlesWell, it depends on the god. The existence of the god of deism would not make the resurrection a good conclusion, because miracles are still improbable, and the four facts are not strong enough. I would be happy with the generic definition of an omniscient (all knowing) omni-benevolent (all good) and omnipotent (all powerful) creator of the universe. That such a powerful being would not be able to intervene in creation as Deism implies, seems absurd on this even generic definition.
Quote: (1) in both the case of the magic trick and the alleged resurrection, one's ignorance of the details (WLC's four facts are not many details-- that's why I compared them to the few facts we know about the trick of cutting a lady in half) does not mean that magic and miracles are good explanations. I will get to the "ignorance of the details" argument after this, but in the analogy of magic, you have very good reason to believe that it was only a trick, and not real magic. Since we know that magicians do tricks similar to this all the time using only natural means, and that this is infact their job, we would of course posit a naturalistic explanation. The case with the disciples (as the four points applies to them) is very different. According to one of the facts, they had bonifide experiences of seeing Jesus, according to history, they either risked their lives or were martyred for that belief. Furthermore, they carried on a strict ethical tradition which taught that lying was a great sin. None of this proves that they were not deceived, but it simply separates the case from the analogy of magic and magicians, where one would expect a naturalistic explanation.
Quote: 2) one does not have to posit a specific alternative explanation of the magic trick or the alleged resurrection in order to conclude that it probably wasn't magic or a miracle, respectively. This is because an unknown but natural explanation is better than a magical or miraculous one due to their low probability and the weak evidence.
You are still using the analogy of magic, which I think predisposes you to the belief that there has to be some naturalistic explanation. If there is a God, as you conceded for the sake of argument, then this is false. Many people (if not most) who believe in God, even different religions, believe God does miracles even to this day. If a supernatural explanation is the only viable one available, and if it explains the facts well, why not take it? One important point, which is not often fleshed out in Dr. Craig's debates, is that one would have to explain why Jesus was called messiah and resurrected (not just alive in some other realm), since beliving the former would be basically a contradiction for a first century Jew (a crucified messiah would mean he was not the messiah), as well as the latter in a different sense (the ressurection was when all the dead were raised, and not just one guy).
Quote:
Basically, the conclusion that the alleged resurrection was a miracle is worse than the conclusion that something unknown and natural happened, because the probability of the resurrection is low (even after conceding the existence of god, i.e. the god of deism) and the evidence is not strong.
|
| Loading... | |
| GeoffreyCharles |
| Posted 05/30/11 at 02:59 AM | Reply with quote #9 |
|
Quote: I would be happy with the generic definition of an omniscient (all knowing) omni-benevolent (all good) and omnipotent (all powerful) creator of the universe.
I meant to concede a creator God, that's all. Therefore, I didn't mean to concede omniscience, omni-benevolence, or omnipotence. If those are characteristics of the god of deism, then I misspoke.
Quote: That such a powerful being would not be able to intervene in creation as Deism implies, seems absurd on this even generic definition.
I haven't ruled a miracle by god out of the question. Quote: I will get to the "ignorance of the details" argument after this, but in the analogy of magic, you have very good reason to believe that it was only a trick, and not real magic. Since we know that magicians do tricks similar to this all the time using only natural means, and that this is in fact their job, we would of course posit a naturalistic explanation.
I agree. The prior probability of real magic is very low. Quote: The case with the disciples (as the four points applies to them) is very different. According to one of the facts, they had bonifide experiences of seeing Jesus,
There are natural explanations, and perhaps others unknown to us, that could explain these. This is not strong evidence.
Quote: according to history, they either risked their lives or were martyred for that belief.
I have not conceded that the disciples were martyred specifically for their belief in the resurrection of Jesus because it is not in the four facts. Only that the "disciples believed" is in the four facts.
I do not think there is good evidence that the disciples were put in a recant-Jesus'-resurrection-or-die situation. Therefore, I do not think this is strong evidence.
Quote: Furthermore, they carried on a strict ethical tradition which taught that lying was a great sin.
Perhaps, but I think the probability of a lie being told by a disciple at some point is greater than the probability of the resurrection.
Quote: None of this proves that they were not deceived, but it simply separates the case from the analogy of magic and magicians, where one would expect a naturalistic explanation.
I disagree, because due to the low probability of resurrections and the weak evidence in the four facts, a naturalistic explanation is probable.
Quote: You are still using the analogy of magic, which I think predisposes you to the belief that there has to be some naturalistic explanation.
No, I don't think there has to be. Rather, I think it's probable that there's a naturalistic explanation.
Quote: If there is a God, as you conceded for the sake of argument, then this is false.
I agree; it is false. Therefore, I think resurrections are possible yet improbable.
Quote: Many people (if not most) who believe in God, even different religions, believe God does miracles even to this day.
I agree, but this is not a question of belief in miracles, but rather evidence for miracles.
Quote: If a supernatural explanation is the only viable one available, and if it explains the facts well, why not take it?
If by viable you mean probable, then I would take it.
Quote: One important point, which is not often fleshed out in Dr. Craig's debates, is that one would have to explain why Jesus was called messiah and resurrected (not just alive in some other realm), since believing the former would be basically a contradiction for a first century Jew (a crucified messiah would mean he was not the messiah), as well as the latter in a different sense (the resurrection was when all the dead were raised, and not just one guy). There are possible explanations, but one doesn't need to explain that in order to reject the resurrection because the evidence for it is weak and it is improbable. Quote: It is true that a miracle is, all things being equal, improbable in a given situation. However, things which are improbable happen all the time.
I agree, but resurrections do not happen because they are more improbable. |
| Loading... | |
| antybu86 |
| Posted 05/30/11 at 01:24 PM | Reply with quote #10 |
|
GeoffreyCharles-
This is actually, I think, a really great argument against the typical resurrection scenario. If an unknown naturalistic explanation has a higher probability that a supernatural miracle, then it doesn't really matter what sort of facts are given to dispute "luck" or other detailed naturalistic explanations (like the swoon theory) because the probability of an unknown naturalistic explanation will always be higher.
What the apologist needs to do here is to make the case that ANY naturalistic explanation is less likely than the supernatural explanation, but that's really, really hard to do. Usually the apologist tries to get the probability of God's existence higher, but (as you've figured out) even that's not enough. You'd have to get the probability of the Christian God's existence higher - which would be pointless because if they could do that then there would be no need for the resurrection argument in the first place.
|
| Loading... | |
| GeoffreyCharles |
| Posted 05/30/11 at 02:24 PM | Reply with quote #11 |
|
Quote: This is actually, I think, a really great argument against the typical resurrection scenario. If an unknown naturalistic explanation has a higher probability that a supernatural miracle, then it doesn't really matter what sort of facts are given to dispute "luck" or other detailed naturalistic explanations (like the swoon theory) because the probability of an unknown naturalistic explanation will always be higher.
As long as the probability of a specific natural explanation is greater than that of a supernatural explanation, then I agree, one should go with the natural one.
But, if there are no known natural explanations that are more probable than a supernatural explanation, then the question of whether or not the supernatural explanation is good enough depends on whether or not the evidence for it can overcome its own low probability.
If the evidence cannot overcome its low probability, then a natural yet unknown explanation is probable.
Quote: What the apologist needs to do here is to make the case that ANY naturalistic explanation is less likely than the supernatural explanation, but that's really, really hard to do.
They also must show that the evidence for a supernatural explanation is strong enough to overcome its own low probability.
Quote: Usually the apologist tries to get the probability of God's existence higher, but (as you've figured out) even that's not enough. You'd have to get the probability of the Christian God's existence higher
I agree.
Quote: - which would be pointless because if they could do that then there would be no need for the resurrection argument in the first place.
Perhaps there would be a need if the existence of the Christian God was probable, but weakly so. |
| Loading... | |
| emailestthoume |
| Posted 05/30/11 at 10:29 PM | Reply with quote #12 |
|
Geoff, I feel like the issue between us if of probability. You see the probability of a miracle occurring in this instance as extremely low, so you don't see the evidence as justifying it. I see the probability of a miracle low, but not so low that the evidence cannot make it a justifiable inference. I don't see what else there is too it.
|
| Loading... | |
| GeoffreyCharles |
| Posted 05/30/11 at 10:50 PM | Reply with quote #13 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by emailestthoume
Geoff, I feel like the issue between us if of probability. You see the probability of a miracle occurring in this instance as extremely low, so you don't see the evidence as justifying it. I see the probability of a miracle low, but not so low that the evidence cannot make it a justifiable inference. I don't see what else there is too it.
I agree.
Perhaps you think that the resurrection is more probable because you think the Christian God exists, and that He desired to raise Jesus.
That makes sense, because the probability of the existence of the Christian God directly affects the probability of the resurrection of Jesus.
Allegedly, the Christian God has done many miracles throughout history. Therefore, the probabilities of those miracles directly affect the probability of the resurrection of Jesus.
If there was good evidence for those miracles, then the probability of the existence of the Christian God would increase. But, I do not think there is good evidence for those miracles.
Therefore, both the existence of the Christian God and the resurrection of Jesus are improbable.
Thoughts? |
| Loading... | |
| emailestthoume |
| Posted 05/31/11 at 01:46 PM | Reply with quote #14 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by GeoffreyCharlesQuote: Originally Posted by emailestthoume
Geoff, I feel like the issue between us if of probability. You see the probability of a miracle occurring in this instance as extremely low, so you don't see the evidence as justifying it. I see the probability of a miracle low, but not so low that the evidence cannot make it a justifiable inference. I don't see what else there is too it.
I agree.
Perhaps you think that the resurrection is more probable because you think the Christian God exists, and that He desired to raise Jesus.
That makes sense, because the probability of the existence of the Christian God directly affects the probability of the resurrection of Jesus.
Allegedly, the Christian God has done many miracles throughout history. Therefore, the probabilities of those miracles directly affect the probability of the resurrection of Jesus.
If there was good evidence for those miracles, then the probability of the existence of the Christian God would increase. But, I do not think there is good evidence for those miracles.
Therefore, both the existence of the Christian God and the resurrection of Jesus are improbable.
Thoughts?
I am not assuming the Christian God. I thinking more of what you granted me, just God in general. I am then looking at the probability that a miracle could happen. Keep in mind that if God does exist you cannot test for him like he was a protein, for proteins do not have a mind. Scientific experiments to test for the effectiveness of prayer, for example, don't take into account that God has a mind and can choose not to be found by scientific experiments. In light of that, I don't see why a miracle would be so extremely improbable that the evidence here could not justify its inference.
|
| Loading... | |
| ooberman |
| Posted 05/31/11 at 02:36 PM | Reply with quote #15 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by GeoffreyCharles
Well, it depends on the god. The existence of the god of deism would not make the resurrection a good conclusion, because miracles are still improbable, and the four facts are not strong enough. This is a strong point. Christians have to presuppose the Christian God in order to argue for the Christian God. Once they fumble through the various bad arguments for a God, they claim they have a cumulative argument for God - and they presuppose that that God has all the characteristics needed to make the Bible true. It is seriously horrible reasoning, but we have to address it to help them. |
| Loading... | |
