On the Prior Probability of the Resurrection




Recently a friend on Facebook argued that Christians have no business declaring the Resurrection of Jesus to be the most probable (a posteriori) explanation for the relevant facts, since they are unable to first pin down the prior probability of the Resurrection independent of those facts. I think that's a reasonable enough objection and deserves a reply. After all, posterior probability by definition is a function of both likelihood on the evidence and prior probability.[1] Clearly, then, one cannot determine posterior probability without some idea of the prior.
 
My friend went on to say that the prior probability of a hypothesis is typically established as a ratio of previous instances of the event and total opportunities for the event to have occurred: "Normally we determine the probability of X by how many occasions of X we have seen out of how many opportunities for X there have been. Is the resurrection of Jesus some kind of exception?" This amounts to an appeal to frequentism for finding the prior. Right here is where I begin to take issue with the typical skeptical-Bayesian approach to miracle questions like the Resurrection. What appears missing from so many of these calculations is any consideration of relevant background knowledge. I do agree with Swinburne when he says that "any division of evidence between e [observational evidence] and k [background knowledge] is a somewhat arbitrary one."[2] That said, numerous facts indirectly relevant to the question of the Resurrection are too often overlooked, perhaps lost between very specific, directly relevant evidence (like the empty tomb or post-resurrection appearances of Jesus to the disciples) and very general knowledge about the world.
 
First, there are the evidence and arguments from natural theology that suggest the existence of God. Evidence in the way of fine-tuning in the physical universe, specifiable complexity of biological systems, and the universal moral intuition of human beings, among other things, suggests that the probability that God exists is quite high. Moreover the prophetic history of Israel, in which the Jewish people were scattered throughout the world and then re-gathered to her ancestral home in the "last days," suggests the existence of the God invoked by Jesus in particular. Though it is certainly right to bear in mind the number of previous recorded and confirmed resurrections in history (arguably zero), the evidence for the God of Israel is important information to bring to the question of prior probability.
 
Next, consider the particular personality and historical circumstances of the central figure involved. The question before us is not, "What is the probability that some random guy rose from the dead?" but "What is the probability that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead?" I do not dispute that the probability of a random guy rising from the dead is negligible. But from all indications Jesus of Nazareth was not some random guy. Jesus claimed for himself, both explicitly and implicitly, to be the Son of God and the King of the Jews, the Messiah; and elements of his life indeed fulfilled various messianic prophecies from the Old Testament. Jesus was widely reported by followers and detractors alike to have performed healing miracles and miracles of provision. (The Pharisees attributed these to the work of Beelzebub, but did not deny their occurrence; and the later rabbis of the Tannaitic period likewise attributed the miracles of Jesus to "sorcery.") In addition, Jesus frequently foretold his own crucifixion and resurrection – most often to disciples who refused to believe it. These considerations together would seem to make the Resurrection of Jesus much more antecedently probable than the resurrection of some random guy.
 
Finally, I would suggest there is precedent for a miracle, even a "raising of the dead" of sorts, in the origin of life. The fact is that at one point in our prehistory a dead collection of elements became a living organism – whether by God breathing life into the "dust of the earth" as recorded in Genesis, or by some sort of chemical evolution. And of course no origin of life event has ever been witnessed by anyone (not even in principle). The prior probability of the origin of life just before life actually originated therefore must have been at or very near zero. Yet here we are reflecting on the fact that life originated. Thus our continually being alive constitutes evidence strong enough to overcome the seemingly overwhelming prior probability against life originating. In a very real sense the origin of life is evidence of a miracle.
 
Taken together, these background factors arguably make the prior probability of the Resurrection much higher than any prior probability that would be reached by a frequentist interpretation of probability alone. When that higher prior probability is conjoined with a similarly high likelihood ratio (a measure of explanatory power)[3], the posterior probability that Jesus Christ actually rose from the dead increases accordingly. I would argue, in fact, that while intuitively implausible, the Resurrection is evidentially probable. This is just the sort of thing we should expect of a God who intends to reveal himself through the "sign" of a miracle in history.



[1] This is essentially an informal statement of Bayes' Theorem,
 
                         P(E│H & K) x P(H│K)
P(H│E & K) =   -----------------------------
                                   P(E│K)
 
where P(H│E & K) is the posterior probability of hypothesis H, given new evidence E and background knowledge K; P(E│H & K) is the probability of the evidence given the truth of the hypothesis and background knowledge; P(E│K) is the probability of the evidence given background knowledge alone; and P(H│K) is the prior probability of the hypothesis, again conditional on background knowledge.
 
[2] Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God (New York: Oxford, 2004), p. 67.
 
[3] See "Understated Evidence and the Resurrection of Jesus" for reasons to think that the explanatory power of the Resurrection hypothesis is very high relative to competing hypotheses.
 
 
 
 

Comments

Anonymous said…
DM: Recently a friend on Facebook argued that Christians have no business declaring the Resurrection of Jesus to be the most probable (a posteriori) explanation for the relevant facts, since they are unable to first pin down the prior probability of the Resurrection independent of those facts. I think that's a reasonable enough objection and deserves a reply. After all, posterior probability by definition is a function of both likelihood on the evidence and prior probability.[1] Clearly, then, one cannot determine posterior probability without some idea of the prior.

So what is a reasonable estimate of the prior probability?

DM: I would argue, in fact, that while intuitively implausible, the Resurrection is evidentially probable.

Okay, so argue it. Estimate the probabilities and do the maths.

Pix

Joe Hinman said…
Excellent article Don. The atheist position requires more question begging,that's what it comes down to.
Joe Hinman said…
Pix: (AKA Anonymous Anonymous)Okay, so argue it. Estimate the probabilities and do the maths.

Hey there my friend. no I wont do math, you have the advantage on that one. But most of what I see atheists putting into the calculation, the folks @ SOP, the finest intellectual blog new atheism has, who have hashed this out more than most atheist bloggers, when they calculate priors it's all question begging,

In would set at 50-50 because both sides are biased and I don't see anyway to overcome it because it';s based upon metaphysics which can;'t be proved one way or the other.



Don McIntosh said…
"Estimate the probabilities and do the maths."

I take it you have no objections to the various points I made about background knowledge.

Maybe next week I can go beyond discussion of relative and subjective probabilities (though these are perfectly valid) and set a range for what I think the prior should be, then calculate a corresponding range for posterior probabilities.

But you have to say "please." :-)
Don McIntosh said…
"Excellent article Don. The atheist position requires more question begging,that's what it comes down to."

I agree Joe. Thanks for that.
im-skeptical said…
Two points about your background knowledge:

1). The question before us is not, "What is the probability that some random guy rose from the dead?" but "What is the probability that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead?"
- This is a misdirection. We might ask, what is the probability that anyone arose from the dead? This actually works in your favor, because it is more probably that someone (out of all humanity) has done this, than that any one particular person has done it. On the other hand, without specific knowledge of even a single specific instance of it, the prior probability remains quite low.

2). there is precedent for a miracle, even a "raising of the dead" of sorts, in the origin of life.
- Again, a misdirection. We all can agree that life arose (by whatever means). But that's not at all the same thing as a dead, rotting corpse coming back to life.
Joe Hinman said…
The problem I have is that I don't believe you make probabilities on god. For two reasons, because no new info so nothing after the prior, and the prior will always be biased either way, Then because God is not given in sense data can't be a manageable veritable. Cant know what God will do so we can't prediction a probability on resurrection,Not to mentor the fact that it's probability on past ent,Although Carrier thinks he can answer that.

It's not meaningful,. mathematicians don't like Bayes. they don't think Bayes is science they think it;s a parler trick.

im-skeptical said…
It's not meaningful,. mathematicians don't like Bayes. they don't think Bayes is science they think it;s a parler trick.

Joe, you don't know what you're talking about. Bayes' theorem is a mathematically correct statement of probability. And it is universally accepted by both mathematicians and scientists. Read, for example, Sean Carroll. Or this brief article by Victor Stenger.
Joe Hinman said…
Sharon Berstch McGrayne, The Theory that would not Die: How Bayes’ Rule Cracked the Enigma Code, Hunted Down Russian Submarines, and Emerged Triumphant from Two Centuries of Controversy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011, 3.
Joe Hinman said…
Mathematicians have disapproved of the theorem for most of its existence. It has been rejected on the grounds that it’s based upon guesswork. It was regarded as a parlor trick until World War II then it was regarded as a useful parlor trick. This explains why it was strangely absent from my younger days and early education as a student of the existence of God. I used to pour through philosophy anthologies with God articles in them and never came across it. It was just part of the discussion on the existence of God until about the year 2000 suddenly it’s all over the net. It’s resurgence is primarily due to it’s use by skeptics in trying to argue that God is improbable. It was not taught in math from the end fo the war to the early 90s.

this is documented by


Sharon Berstch McGrayne, The Theory that would not Die: How Bayes’ Rule Cracked the Enigma Code, Hunted Down Russian Submarines, and Emerged Triumphant from Two Centuries of Controversy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011, 3.

besides it doesn't matter how good the theorem if probability can't be used on God.
Joe Hinman said…
I am against doming history by Bayes, see my Clarice "Richard Carrier and The Bayes Craze."

part 1

part 2









im-skeptical said…
Bayes theorem has to be used appropriately. If you don't have a basis for calculating a prior probability, then it is just a parlor trick. This is typically the case with theists trying to show that supernatural phenomena are probable. The fact of the matter is that the ACTUAL prior probability for any such event is zero, because there has never been any confirmed observation of of these things. If you use the correct values for your calculation, you the the correct result.
BK said…
"The fact of the matter is that the ACTUAL prior probability for any such event is zero, because there has never been any confirmed observation of of these things."

So, you're saying that if there has never been a confirmed observation of a particular thing, the possibility of it happening is zero? Wow. Guess the Twin Towers didn't fall on 9/11 because no one had ever observed anything like that before. Thanks for the insight.
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
Bayes theorem has to be used appropriately. If you don't have a basis for calculating a prior probability, then it is just a parlor trick. This is typically the case with theists trying to show that supernatural phenomena are probable. The fact of the matter is that the ACTUAL prior probability for any such event is zero, because there has never been any confirmed observation of of these things. If you use the correct values for your calculation, you the the correct result.

yes but it works both ways, you also can't use it to show SN stuff is improbable.
im-skeptical said…
Guess the Twin Towers didn't fall on 9/11 because no one had ever observed anything like that before. Thanks for the insight.

No. Remember the definition of prior probability. We do see terrorist attacks, so we can say that there is some probability of terrorist attacks. But every unique event is something that has no historical track record, so there is no basis to calculate a prior probability for that specific event.
Joe Hinman said…
No. Remember the definition of prior probability. We do see terrorist attacks, so we can say that there is some probability of terrorist attacks. But every unique event is something that has no historical track record, so there is no basis to calculate a prior probability for that specific event.

you have not even begun to address the two reasons I gave as to why you can't curate probability of god,or of the things God does. It's equally ridiculous to assert probability for unknown past events.

all historical events are unique, if go trying to portion based upon similar circumstances your are just basing the outcome.The twin towers made been boned before but suppose they had not been, You way but we there some attacks somehwere but that's not really the same;
Joe Hinman said…
historians assume our knowledge of history is probabilistic they talk of historical probability but they put numbers to it,they assume the variables are too complex to assign numbers.
Phil Stilwell said…
I didn't understand your reasoning. Can you apply the reasoning in your article to the probability an amputee will grow back their missing limb after prayer? Your article seemed to imply that the existence of a God who can resurrect makes a resurrection quite probable. Do Christians believe God can heal amputees?

And what's the likelihood all the other accounts of resurrections are true based on your reasoning in the article? Are you saying that the probabilities go from slight to very probable simply because Jesus suggested he would rise?

And what is the likelihood that the writers of the gospels invented what Jesus said about rising? Isn't the likelihood that someone would lie about a resurrection greater than an actual resurrection?

And can we see some actual probabilities reflecting what you wrote in the article? I tend to think it is a bit senseless to talk about the probabiliity of the resurrection without an actual probability and it's equation presented.
im-skeptical said…
Joe and BK,

When we talk about prior probabilities, we are referring to a genre of events. We can talk about the prior probability of a dead person rising by considering all instances of dead people and noting what proportion of then actually rise. We can talk about the prior probability of amputees regrowing their limbs by considering all instances of amputees and noting what proportion of them actually have regrown their limbs. It is meaningless to talk about the prior probability of a unique event, because there is no basis to say that it happens some specific proportion of the time.

I agree that you can't talk about the prior probability of God. But you can talk about the prior probability of certain types of events such as miracles of the sort that I described above. There is a track record for resurrections (we don't ever see it), and there is a track record for regrown limbs (we don't ever see it). So for things like that, we can say the the prior probability is zero. You might argue that these things have occurred rarely. OK, then we can assign a prior probability of "practically zero".
Don McIntosh said…
Thanks all for the replies. I'm hoping to answer some of these between today and tomorrow.

Meanwhile this is for anyone insisting that only a precise numerical calculation can meaningfully estimate "the" probability (prior or other) for a given event:

Imagine for a moment your friend is planning to meet you for dinner this evening. The two of you set a tentative reservation time of 8:00. Your friend says, "I need to finish up some paperwork and then swing by the grocery store after work, and there's road construction on my usual route to the restaurant, but I can probably still get there before 8:00." He "probably" has in mind, not only paperwork, the grocery store, and road construction, but any number of other related factors: how much gas is in his tank, how long the lines are at the store, how fast he's willing to drive past the speed limit (and how relatively likely it would be for him to get stopped for it), and, yes, how successful he's been when facing similar, but certainly not identical, scenarios in the past. Etc. Now you could, I suppose, turn around and say to your friend, "Probably? Unless you present an equation demonstrating an actual probability, your reference to probability is meaningless." But your friend would "probably" think you're kidding. He is simply saying that all relevant factors considered (and a rational approach would account for relevant factors), he has reason to believe it more likely than not that he'll be able to make it on time.

Our skeptic contributors here seem to be appealing to theoretical and empirical probabilities to define "probability," but there are also epistemic or inductive probabilities, subjective probabilities, and of course probabilities specifically obtained through Bayesian methods (and even then useful Bayesian analyses are often assumed relative to other variables in the theorem, not by a straight calculation: I.e., one may know as a direct result of the theorem that if probability of the total evidence has decreased by some amount, or estimate of prior probability or predictive power has increased by some amount, posterior probability of the hypothesis should be increased in the proportion determined when those amounts are "plugged into" the theorem. So if we were to introduce a new well-verified form of evidence – say the finding of a sealed official record of the Roman guards' testimony to authorities under oath that Jesus emerged from the tomb unaided – a fact which would be expected given that the Resurrection occurred, but would not be expected otherwise, the probability that the Resurrection actually happened should be revised upward. By how much exactly? I couldn't say, but that's not the point.

As I mentioned to Phil earlier, if it is possible to use Bayesian methods to obtain a posterior probability, it is also possible to use a posterior probability obtained earlier by Bayesian methods to set a prior probability for a different scenario. I.e., Bayes' rule does not require a frequentist approach to determine the prior. Also, one may infer to a best explanation (and rightly consider it the "more probable" explanation), without supplying any calculations at all.

Phil Stilwell said…
An inference to the best explanation carries only as much weight as the resolution of the probabilities on which your abdutive process depends. Low resolution in your probabilities = low reliability of your inference to the best explanation.
Phil Stilwell said…
In addition, abduction is intrinsically a lower resolution than induction. It is a tool of science to determine priorities of focus, but is not appropriate for a general epistemology since it blurs out the relevant probabilities. The more quantified your probabilities are, the stronger your position. Rational belief is a degree of belief that maps to the degree of the relevant evidence. Abduction does not allow for this.
Joe Hinman said…
I agree that you can't talk about the prior probability of God. But you can talk about the prior probability of certain types of events such as miracles of the sort that I described above. There is a track record for resurrections (we don't ever see it), and there is a track record for regrown limbs (we don't ever see it). So for things like that, we can say the the prior probability is zero. You might argue that these things have occurred rarely. OK, then we can assign a prior probability of "practically zero".

you could shoot down enough naturalistic causes as improbable until the other guy gives in and says maybe it is probably miracle. still not proof.

what you can't do is assign probablity to God'ss actiomns, miracles are God's actions.
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous Phil Stilwell said...
In addition, abduction is intrinsically a lower resolution than induction. It is a tool of science to determine priorities of focus, but is not appropriate for a general epistemology since it blurs out the relevant probabilities. The more quantified your probabilities are, the stronger your position. Rational belief is a degree of belief that maps to the degree of the relevant evidence. Abduction does not allow for this.

God arguments are not epistemology, epistemology is not about determining the existence or being of a particular concepts or objects. Bayes is not epistemology, other from of probability are not epistemology.

Abduction may be "intrinsically a lower resolution" is high enough to warrant belief in God.
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous Phil Stilwell said...
I didn't understand your reasoning. Can you apply the reasoning in your article to the probability an amputee will grow back their missing limb after prayer? Your article seemed to imply that the existence of a God who can resurrect makes a resurrection quite probable. Do Christians believe God can heal amputees?


suppose an amputee grew back a severed limb. what would cause that? It can't be nature because nature doesn't do that. We have no examples of that that can be called nature.So if that happened it would have to be a miraculous event. What causes miracles? God. if miracles happen it is God who causes them,Thus a miracle is an event caused by God.

Is God determined by the laws of natgure? If he was his actions would be natural they would be found in nature.Since they are not (we just established this in terms of amputees) then they are not natural so they they are not determined; that God chooses freely.

what does this mean? It means that God decides what miracles he does it is not subject to laws or nature nothing we can do can make it happen. for that reason we cannot set a probability to it. Because we don;t know enough about God's decision making process.

we can say probability of nature causing an amputee to grow back a limb is 0, rather, there is no probability, but does not prove there's no God it does not even cast doubt on God because is not subject to nature. you following this?


Joe Hinman said…
And what's the likelihood all the other accounts of resurrections are true based on your reasoning in the article? Are you saying that the probabilities go from slight to very probable simply because Jesus suggested he would rise?

you must be talking to Don. I dom't attempt to prove probability of past events,

And what is the likelihood that the writers of the gospels invented what Jesus said about rising? Isn't the likelihood that someone would lie about a resurrection greater than an actual resurrection?

that's based upon assumptions you have not established and question begging. assumptions,your foundation assumption is tacit miracles never happen so must not have happened in this case and you want to use that as proof that our arguments are false and it didn't happen. You think that beats evidence that it did, you are just using your position as a proof of your position,call me a Texas hick but at UT that is called circular reasoning. it's circular reasoning of a variety known as begging the question.

im-skeptical said…
that's based upon assumptions you have not established and question begging. assumptions,your foundation assumption is tacit miracles never happen so must not have happened in this case and you want to use that as proof that our arguments are false and it didn't happen. You think that beats evidence that it did, you are just using your position as a proof of your position,call me a Texas hick but at UT that is called circular reasoning. it's circular reasoning of a variety known as begging the question.

Maybe skeptics simply make the assumption that miracles never happen. Or maybe they look objectively at the evidence and observe that miracles never happen. Because when all is said and done, you still can't show me one single confirmed case of a miracle. Not once. Not ever. The best you can do is show me claims that other believers have made. But a skeptic (not under the influence of "faith") never has the opportunity so see it for himself. Not once. Not ever.
Joe Hinman said…
yup, done so many times. there are lots, 65 officially validated at Lourdes. now you play question beg game., you use the question beg game.we can't accept evidence that favors miracles so there's no evidence that does because it all goes away since we wont accept it,''of course you will dismiss Lourdes without anything about the procedures or the process of validation.
im-skeptical said…
65 officially validated at Lourdes

By the church. Sorry, I don't buy it. Show me a miracle that has been observed by someone who isn't under the influence.
Joe Hinman said…
you are plying the same little question begging game i said you would play.

I have decided I will use Monday's post to answer this.
im-skeptical said…
You must have a very strange definition of "question begging".
Joe Hinman said…
your position is there are no miracles because we font; see any,when you are given evidence you assert that same notion to shoot down the evidence. so in effect you are using your position as proof of your position,
Joe Hinman said…
begging question:

Description: Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. Many people use the phrase “begging the question” incorrectly when they use it to mean, “prompts one to ask the question”. That is NOT the correct usage. Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.
Joe Hinman said…
a variation on that is more what you are doing to assume that the position you hold automatically answers the argument being made because it's your position, there are no miracles because they don't happen, we know they don't happen because don't' see them and when we do they must be fakes because we never accepted then before.
im-skeptical said…
My position is that of any empiricist. Empirical evidence provides warrant for belief. If you can't produce evidence that is possible for me to see for myself, then I have no reason to believe what you claim.
Phil Stilwell said…
I have Muslim friends who argue that we can not know the probability of Allah splitting the moon, yet the moon splitting is more probable than the claim being fabricated. If you start with Allah who wants to demonstrate his power through splitting the moon, then the probability of the moon being split far exceeds the probability that the claim was simply fabricated, or that those seeing the moon split were misperceiving what was actually happening.

Any problem with this type of reasoning?
Phil Stilwell said…
Perhaps that last comment was not clear. Let me try to be more precise.

Imagine a Muslim who believes Muhammad literally split the moon tells you that the probability the moon actually split is greater than any other possible explanation such as a misperceptions of the witnesses, or the fabrication of the account.

Their argument is as follows. Since we know there is a God who has an interest in performing signs and wonders, we should not be surprised the moon was split. And therefore the probabliity the moon actually split is greater than the probability of misperception, fabrication, or any other natural cause.

Is this argument not parallel to the argument you are presenting for the probability of the resurrection?
Gary said…
The veracity of the Christian religion rises or falls on the veracity of the Resurrection and the veracity of the Resurrection rises or falls on the historicity of the alleged post-death appearances of Jesus to his followers. Christians believe that the appearance stories in the Gospels and in the Early Creed are historical facts based primarily on the following:

1. There were so many alleged eyewitnesses to these appearances, sometimes in large groups.
2. These alleged appearances had a dramatic effect on the character of those who witnessed them.
3. These alleged appearances were the impetus for many early Christians to be willing to be tortured and painfully executed for their belief in the veracity of these appearances.
4. These Resurrection appearances were the primary reason for the rapid growth of Christianity.

Question: Are these facts sufficient evidence to believe that a three-day-brain-dead first century corpse really did come back to life possessing supernatural powers; supernatural powers which allowed him to teleport between cities, walk through locked doors, and levitate into space?

Before you answer that question I ask you to watch this Youtube video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=najjzDeRrNY

In this video, HUNDREDS of very devout, sincere people of faith believe that a woman who has been dead for 20 centuries is appearing to them. I have no doubt that at least some of these “eyewitnesses” would be willing to suffer great persecution and even death defending their belief that this event really happened.

Based on the very large number of eyewitnesses to this event and upon their very intense, sincere belief that this very extra-ordinary event really occurred…should we believe them?

Answer: Absolutely not!

Why? These people are very obviously experiencing an illusion. There is no dead woman to be seen anywhere in the video. Collective human experience would suggest that this is very likely what happened in the first century with the early Christians. The appearance stories in the Early Creed of First Corinthians 15, the earliest description we have of these alleged events, make no mention of a talking, walking, broiled-fish-eating Jesus. If the detailed appearance stories in the Gospels are literary embellishments, perfectly acceptable in a Greco-Roman biography as evangelical Christian New Testament scholar Michael Licona has demonstrated in his recent book, Why are There Differences in the Gospels?, it is quite possible that the actual early Christian appearance claims were based on illusions, similar to the one seen in the Youtube video above.


Joe Hinman said…
Gary I don't speak for Don but he's not in the CADRE anymore, He'a not going to come and answer this.
Joe Hinman said…
your argument is fallacious, it's begging the question and argument from analogy Because on group was deceived then any group with a ceremonial is deceived that does not follow.
Gary said…
What the Youtube video in my above comment demonstrates is that a very large crowd of hundreds of people can all claim to see a dead person appear to them...and all be very mistaken.
Joe Hinman said…
O youtube wow, they are never silly or wrong are they? My favorite is "in the shadow Sasquatch," but there's good one about a guy who found a Nephalim spear in Afghanistan,which one's do you like? O and one showing ghosts on trial cams.
Joe Hinman said…
We know people can be velocipede, That's not not proving anything,look how many atheists there are.
Gary said…
You don't believe that this Virgin Mary sighting in Ireland took place this summer? Video and audio is not good enough for you? If I supply you with newspaper articles about the event would that be sufficient or will you demand to interview the alleged eyewitnesses YOURSELF before you believe?

This event in Ireland is a fact. It does not prove that the early Christians mistook an illusion in nature for an appearance of Jesus, but it does demonstrate that large crowds of people can be gullible; all believing they see something that is not there.
Gary said…
Here is a link to an article in the British newspaper "The Daily Mail" discussing the crowd in Ireland who claim that a dead woman had appeared to them:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4599194/Hundreds-flock-Virgin-Mary-appear-sky.html

Several other British and Irish newspapers ran the story. If you would like more links to prove that this gathering of a large group of people in Ireland happened, I will be happy to post them.
Joe Hinman said…
Gary said...
You don't believe that this Virgin Mary sighting in Ireland took place this summer? Video and audio is not good enough for you? If I supply you with newspaper articles about the event would that be sufficient or will you demand to interview the alleged eyewitnesses YOURSELF before you believe?

I din't say it did't happen,for that matter you can't prove it wasn't a miracle. More important it is not comparable to Lourdes Lourdes is controlled and uses the finest researchers and medical evidence to know the people were sick and that became well that's totally different,

This event in Ireland is a fact. It does not prove that the early Christians mistook an illusion in nature for an appearance of Jesus, but it does demonstrate that large crowds of people can be gullible; all believing they see something that is not there.


ew already know that, how did Trump win?
Joe Hinman said…
I am arguing with Skepie about Lourdes so I forgot this the res, same difference,
Joe Hinman said…
Gary said...
Here is a link to an article in the British newspaper "The Daily Mail" discussing the crowd in Ireland who claim that a dead woman had appeared to them:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4599194/Hundreds-flock-Virgin-Mary-appear-sky.html

Several other British and Irish newspapers ran the story. If you would like more links to prove that this gathering of a large group of people in Ireland happened, I will be happy to post them.

doesn't prove a damn thing, just because one crowd is fooled does';t mean they all are,betides your sources suck,daily mail i snot a good source. While sure it happened they are probably leaving out some crucial fact that make a difference,
Gary said…
I have no idea what you are talking about, Joe. Everyone on the planet (but you, it seems) agrees that this crowd gathered in Ireland on a specific day this summer, 2017, because a Portugese boy claimed that the Virgin Mary had told him that she would appear on a specific day in Knock, Ireland, and...VOILA...it happened!!!

Actually---NOTHING happened. There were clouds and the sun and a crowd of gullible, superstitious people who desperately wanted to see a dead woman appear to them. ...And that's it.

This is NOT proof that this is what happened in the first century, giving rise to the Jesus' appearance claims, but this event does demonstrate just how possible it is for a large crowd of people to claim that they all see a dead person...when they don't.

It is possible that the early Christian resurrected-Jesus appearance claims are based on illusions, similar to the one in Ireland this year. I can't prove it, but this is a MUCH more probable explanation for these claims, based on cumulative human history and experience, than that a three-day-brain-dead corpse magically came back to life and later flew off into outer space.
Joe Hinman said…
Gary said...
I have no idea what you are talking about, Joe. Everyone on the planet (but you, it seems) agrees that this crowd gathered in Ireland on a specific day this summer, 2017, because a Portugese boy claimed that the Virgin Mary had told him that she would appear on a specific day in Knock, Ireland, and...VOILA...it happened!!!

you are not even listening,show me where I said they didn;t gather? show me my words where did I say it?

Actually---NOTHING happened. There were clouds and the sun and a crowd of gullible, superstitious people who desperately wanted to see a dead woman appear to them. ...And that's it.

they describe the seam event so I guess they saw it, just because it was in their minds the same hallucination in all their minds at once is pretty unsual,

This is NOT proof that this is what happened in the first century, giving rise to the Jesus' appearance claims, but this event does demonstrate just how possible it is for a large crowd of people to claim that they all see a dead person...when they don't.

which proves nothing, it is just as possible that the crowd in the in fest saw something that was there,again your sources are not trust worthy,

It is possible that the early Christian resurrected-Jesus appearance claims are based on illusions, similar to the one in Ireland this year. I can't prove it, but this is a MUCH more probable explanation for these claims, based on cumulative human history and experience, than that a three-day-brain-dead corpse magically came back to life and later flew off into outer space.

People spoke with risen Jesus touched him and saw him eat food,on more than one occasion so it's a very different thing.
Gary said…
1. There is no evidence that any of the people in the crowd were hallucinating, by the medical definition of that term. They were all experiencing a MISPERCEPTION. They saw a cluster of clouds and perceived it to be a figure of a dead woman. Do you see a dead woman in the video, Joe?
They did not all hallucinate the same image in their minds.

It is possible that this is what happened with the early Christians who claimed to see the risen Jesus.

2. The detailed appearances stories in the Gospels in which Jesus touches people, allows others to touch him, eats food, etc., COULD BE literary embellishments which would have been perfectly acceptable in the genre of literature in which the Gospels were written: Greco-Roman biographies. The real "appearance" events, described in the Early Creed of First Corinthians 15, may have simply involved group misperceptions of reality similar to the sighting of the Virgin Mary mentioned in the video. There is no mention of a walking/talking/fish eating Jesus in the appearance accounts in the Early Creed.
Joe Hinman said…
Gary said...
1. There is no evidence that any of the people in the crowd were hallucinating, by the medical definition of that term. They were all experiencing a MISPERCEPTION. They saw a cluster of clouds and perceived it to be a figure of a dead woman. Do you see a dead woman in the video, Joe?

that is an ink blot, no two people see the same picture in an ink blot so you are missing my point aren't you? Its still amazing they all saw the same thing. btw still proves nothing about 2000 years ago.



They did not all hallucinate the same image in their minds.

It is possible that this is what happened with the early Christians who claimed to see the risen Jesus.

accept it's impossible to do such hallucinations don't eat food or get touched,

2. The detailed appearances stories in the Gospels in which Jesus touches people, allows others to touch him, eats food, etc., COULD BE literary embellishments which would have been perfectly acceptable in the genre of literature in which the Gospels were written: Greco-Roman biographies.

If you need a convenient excuse to deny to the truth,one can deny anything. You are just asserting it because you don't want to admit the relativity of God.

The real "appearance" events, described in the Early Creed of First Corinthians 15, may have simply involved group misperceptions of reality similar to the sighting of the Virgin Mary mentioned in the video. There is no mention of a walking/talking/fish eating Jesus in the appearance accounts in the Early Creed.

because it's not the function or nature of a creed to be so detailed.We know the story of the empty tomb traveled in witting by mid first century just 20 years after the events,so plenty of eye witnesses there to very it,
Gary said…
"We know the story of the empty tomb traveled in writing by mid first century just 20 years after the events..."

Please give a source for this statement.

Popular posts from this blog

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

How Should I Be A Sceptic -- belief and reason

Kierkegaard's Knights of Faith and the Account of Abraham

Bayes Theorem And Probability of God: No Dice!

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

The Meaning of the Manger

If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?

The Origin of Life and the Fallacy of Composition