Considering how admirable she was and how unlikely a point blank head shot didn't kill her. Bayes would tend to agree. But he might wonder what bad things that nine year old girl did.

Only if Bayes had no access to ballistics and medical info specific to the case though. Presumably at least.

Are all the Bayes references DS makes levels ?

Head shots are very surviable if the bullet doesn't hit any major blood vessels or eloquent portions of the brain. She survives not so much because of random happenstance but because the shooter wasn't skilled in assination. I suspect that because of his ignorance he aimed in such a way that it increased the odds of her surviving a head shot. He would have had better success if he aimed randomly into the cranium.

David mentions Bayes like Guiliani mentions 9/11

These are all dumb responses. The OP had almost nothing to do with Baye's Theorem. It was just my way of saying that it is idiotic to imply that God shows himself by saving an admirable congresswoman when he simultaneously dooms a nine year old girl. in other words the overall incident makes it less, rather than more likely that God exists. And the doctor is a moron.

Those who believe in Him will likely tell you that we cannot know Him in His infinite wisdom, that if He chooses to save the congresswoman who has done good deeds as opposed to the nine-year-old who could turn out to be a monster, who are we to question His choice?

It was a stupid OP. There was no link provided. You mention Pastor Thomas Bayes, but noone knows why.

Now if a Chilean miner had been shot in the head while buried in a cave in and came out in good health after a month, I might be more inclined to believe that God had something to do with it.

From the AP: "Greg Segalini, an uncle of Christina, the 9-year-old victim, told the Arizona Republic that a neighbor was going to the event and invited her along because she had just been elected to the student council and was interested in government.

Christina, who was born on Sept. 11, 2001, was involved in many activities, from ballet to baseball. She had just received her first Holy Communion at St. Odilia's Catholic Church on in Tucson, Catholic Diocese of Tucson officials told The Arizona Daily Star."

I mean, is posting/logic really that hard ?

It doesn't change the probabilities at all. You have no idea whether one, both or neither surviving would result in the greatest good. Perform probability calculations with guesses on the LHS and you get what you deserve on the RHS.

The part that always baffles me is that often those believers who give this response have no problem agreeing that god saved the congresswoman. If they do not know what he is doing how can they possibly know he saved her?

Pretty bad intervention plan...should have mad the gun jam. Then it would just have been "crazy man shoots 9-year old while trying to gun down congresswoman"...would have been a much more potent message.

We're just working with the material you give us.

IMO both of these statements have some validity. In the first, starting with a blank slate with all possibilities equal, an event like yesterday's makes unlikely or impossible those scenarios in which a benevolent God actively opposes apparent evil. That lowers the probability of God existing without making it impossible. There are analogous arguments that can be made to raise the probability of God, but I will refrain from making them to keep the discussion on track.

The second is correct in that it limits the argument to one of probabilities but not proof. Also, practically speaking there is no blank slate as a starting point. There is sufficient evidence (at least for me given that I am in my late 50's) to establish that God does not actively prevent apparent evil. Thus the incremental effect of yesterday's events on top of a lifetime of experience, is negligible.

Back to the first quote, I did not see the original comment on Fox but assuming that the thread title is an accurate representation, the doctor is a moron.

I shouldn't have even brought up probability in the OP. I was just being facetious. My point was that Dr. Siegal disgusted me and showed himself to be an idiot as well, when he attributes Gifford's survival to God and thus implies that God chose not to let the little girl and others survive. In other words if someone insists on publicly invoking God for miraculous escapes they should confine themselfs to events where all or at least most are saved.

CryRL ;(

Maybe the 9 year old would have grown up to be the next Hitler?

I'm not seeing how this:

is supported by this:

I could see some thinking that this would imply God is evil or something, but that the doctor is an idiotic moron? I'm not seeing the connection.

and maybe Hitler saved the father of the gunman because when he moved to Flatbush to avoid the draft he was spared being hit by the train but the lower wages in Flatbush caused his children to be rather malnourished and grow up with insufficient muscle control to hold a gun steady while firing it at somebodies head. who'da thunk?

God works in mysterious ways.

The vast majority of Christians believe that god is good. God allowing a pro-abortion liberal politician to live while allowing a sweet little girl to die should give most Christians pause. The doctor attributing the politician's survival to divine intervention while ignoring the 9 year old's death during the same incident is both idiotic and moronic.

Now, now, be fair ... he can't be both ...
Wiki : moron - It was once applied to people with an IQ of 51-70, being superior in one degree to "imbecile" (IQ of 26-50) and superior in two degrees to "idiot" (IQ of 0-25).

Yahweh's Amazing Miracle by Nonstampcollector