History intended as history as opposed to hagiography.

So it seems that you are using the following standard: "I will not believe anything unless it has been proven scientifically." Would that be a fair characterization?

I expect that reject that the book of Luke as history intended as history, even though that's what it claims to be (starting from Luke 1:1):

It seems quite plain that he is claiming to be recording history intended as history. Now, you can reject that claim and classify it however you want, but then I don't know if there would be any way of satisfying your position.

that a text might contain some historical mentionings does not mean it was intended as history. if the book of luke counts as history, outside of pure fiction, what doesnt?

That's not the claim of the text.

I hate to think of myself as that dogmatic, but yes. That could be what I'm saying. Look...

I don't subscribe to this NOMA crap. Are there things beyond what we (and science) are able to perceive? No doubt. But if we can't test for it, cannot otherwise experience it, and if it doesn't manifest itself in any effective way, then I don't see how it matters. Besides.. As it is, science detects much of what we cannot perceive. Things like infrared, x-rays, etc., to name just two.

So while I'll quickly concede that the scientific world view is not the end all, be all, and is constantly changing as we learn more, I'm going with it. What else is there? I can place my 'faith' in something, but I want it supported at the very least by statistical likelihood, if not facts.

NOMA?

It may not matter. But the claim of Christianity is that it does.

As I've pointed out in other threads, there are events that could theoretically happen which are outside the score of science to "properly observe." For example, supposing for a moment that God does exist, and that he performs a particular miracle that violates the laws of physics, no amount of scientific testing could ever verify that the miracle was, in fact, a violation of the laws of physics.

So there can be a fact that a particular event happened, but it could not be a scientifically verifiable fact. Furthermore, facts can (and do) fly in the face of statistical likelihood (unlikely events do happen).

To the question of "what else is there?" There are other ways of looking at the world in which science is but one of a number of schemes with which one can determine useful information about the universe. But in being non-scientific, they are necessarily different in how you understand and interpret the information presented to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

Fine, but that's pretty much a conversation stopper. The claim of astrology is that the position of the stars and planets will predict what kind of day we'll have tomorrow. What response is there to such vehement assertions that isn't a waste of breathe? It's a claim. Good for it. Now what?

Why not? In another thread it was asked what would make me believe in a personal god. I provided several answers and it turned into a mind numbing conversation. So much so, that I lost my will to post as much.

You are correct that low level miracles might not be convincing. Science simply not knowing the answer to how something happened wouldn't be enough for many events. BUT NOT ALL!

There are many things that would simply be too improbable to occur. For instance, a statue of Jesus clasping his hands or kneeling in prayer would be too unlikely to dismiss. Provided that it occurred long enough for all who are skeptical to observe. There is some non-zero chance that all the molecules in the statue could just happen to move in the same directions at once and cause this to happen. But the chances are so astronomical that they aren't even worth considering. Same goes for the stars spelling out a message in the sky for all on earth to observe. Or if a major body of water parted.

I predict your response will be, "But you said the number of witnesses don't matter!". And that is correct. But if an event happens long enough for skeptical inquiry, it is an entirely different matter. Even a few thousand people seeing the sun move around in the sky, doesn't mean much. But if this even continued long enough for scientists to take measurements, it changes everything if they can't come up with a plausible scenario.

I mean, you're a math guy! Surely you recognize the importance of using probabilities in determining the likelihood that an event is true.

Examples? Three will do.

Again, I feel funny laying out math for a guy who's much more competent than me at math. Or maybe because you know I'm not that competent, you're trying to bamboozle me by playing with words. Likelihood? Yes. Events occur outside of statistical likelihood. But events do NOT occur outside of what is statistically possible! If they do, then, and only then, do you have your miracle! People are fooled by this all the time. It's why they think a family member's cancer remission is a miracle. Or why a mine worker being saved is a miracle. While they are incredibly good fortune for those involved, THEY ARE NOT MIRACLES!

if science can't observe it, how can anyone?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkiMr_Kei3s

The conversation need not move forward. Not every claim is provable within any particular system of understanding. In this case, it's simply outside the realm of meaningful statements relative to that system.

My determination of the likelihood of a statement being true has no impact on the truth value of the statement.

This is easy. An event for which there is insufficient data recorded to verify the event is outside the realm of scientific provability.

Two people walk into a room with a balloon, the door closes, the balloon pops. The two people walk out claiming that the other person popped the balloon. Who popped the balloon?

A person leaves his cat and dog at home while he goes for a walk. When he returns, a cup of water that was on the table is now on the floor. Which animal knocked the water over?

Two kids are playing together upstairs and a fight breaks out between them. Who started it?

But how do you know what is "statistically possible"? This is a philosophical question, and not a math question. The math does not tell you what is possible, but rather, once the possibilities are known, how probable the various possibilities are.

But this is actually harder for you, since you've set up a tautology. Your position is basically "if it happened, it was statistically possible. Otherwise, it could not have happened." With this understanding, there's nothing to say or do. The event either happened or it didn't, and if it did it's impossible (by definition) for it to have been a miracle.

I guess my main point Aaron is that we all have to assign a probability to our beliefs. As my old science teacher used to say, "Nothing's for sure except the statement that nothing's for sure, and even THAT might not be for sure!".

I just had a recent conversation with my youngest daughter about beliefs. I asked her if she would believe me if I told her there was a black baseball cap in the trunk of my car. Of course, she quickly said yes. We then went through why she was willing to believe that. We came up with many reasons. For one thing, I'm a poker player and have many hats. She's seen me in black baseball caps. So while she couldn't verify it, there was little reason to doubt my claim. We decided it was reasonable for her to believe there was a black baseball cap in my the trunk of my car...

I then asked her if she would believe me if I told her there was the head of a dead kangaroo in the trunk of my car. This time, she gave me a suspicious look. So we went through the process again. I'm her father and she trusts me. I do not normally lie to her. Then again, she also knows that I'm not a vet and don't work with animals in any way. kangaroos do not live anywhere near our area and I do not have access to a zoo. So which is more likely? That her father who she trusts is playing a joke on her? Or that there really is the head of a dead kangaroo in the trunk?

Sorry. That's a long story to make my point. But it shows that even when it comes to things we trust (our parents, friends, even eyes and other senses), our beliefs still need to be based on the probability that a claim is true. If the person you trusted most in this world told you that he just got back from the coast and spent the last 3 days in the belly of a fish, you'd probably laugh at him. But if it's in an ancient book called the bible, there are so many people who don't even think to question it and I think that's terribly wrong.

As to the 3 example you provided, I think we're missing each other. I am not claiming that everything is knowable. What I'm saying is that certain things can be ruled out and become incredibly unlikely. In the balloon example, we can be 50% sure it was one of the two, but we can be very suspicious of any claim stating that Elvis Presley did it! Here, we can use what we know about the world (science?) and assign a very improbable likelihood to Elvis being the culprit. So improbable that it isn't even worth considering.

This is how I look at biblical miracles. Of course, there is some chance they occurred. But there are so many other ways they could not have occured that I feel comfortable in simply not believing them. The same cannot be said with your two boys fighting in a room. There are not that many ways for each boy to be innocent. So if you tell me Boy 'A' started it, I'll place a 50% probability on it (maybe slightly less for other reasons). But if you tell me Justin Bieber started it, well...

I do agree with you however, that there is often just one truth. For instance, there either is a god or there isn't. Either a miracle happened, or it didn't. What I don't understand is how you as a mathematician, seem unconcerned that one outcome is much more likely than another. To me, that's like saying the last time I played a pocket pair you'd think it 50/50 that I flopped a set. Either I did or I didn't. You can't possibly be satisfied with that. So why do you okay with such reasoning when it comes to miracles?

It's a matter of how you are assigning probabilities. Unlike when it comes to flopping sets, there's no measure on the universe of possibilities that allows one to numerically assign probabilities to all possible events. This would be like playing poker, but not knowing what cards are actually in the deck. In fact, there was an SMP post not too long ago about this sort of thing...

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47...ple-ev-760405/

This is a typical problem that I see on this forum. You are taking the story of Jonah in isolation (let's not get into metaphorical or literal for this purposes). You are comparing the story of Jonah to say a buddy of yours making the same claim. This is not analogous.

Once you have established that there is good reason to believe God exists (as the creator of the universe) and established that there is good reason to believe that the bible is the best representation of said God, believing that God kept a man alive in the belly of a fish for 3 days is not that difficult to believe. Is it really that far fetched to believe that the creator of all existence could accomplish this?

Your buddy on the other hand is just some guy, and the chance that some guy survived the same situation on his own is incredibly far fetched!

But we DO know which cards are in the deck with respect to what may physically cause one rising from the dead, or a sea to part! Now there very well may be cards which we don't yet know about, but I don't think you get to assert that such cards not only exist... But are what caused something highly improbable to be probable.

I guess we're just at an impasse. What you think is reasonable, I do not. I have all sorts of reasons for not thinking that a person can survive their own death, or that water molecules don't simultaneously move to part a sea. You presumably have one reason to think these things did happen. At that one reason should outweigh everything else you know about the world. Every bit of science that says these things are all but impossible to occur. Every one of your own observations about death and water. You are willing to chuck all that aside on the outside chance that they could have occurred from something unknown to science. I can't do that.

Whoa, whoa... I think maybe you are the one misunderstanding...

I have no problem believing that god (if he exists) could have kept a man alive in a fish for 3 days. No problem whatsoever there. The problem comes from believing whoever wrote that in the bible. Look...

You may have very good reason to believe a personal god exists. Maybe you have such an intense, strong personal feeling emanating from within you that you cannot deny it even if you can't logically support it to an objective observer. I believe this is close to bunny's view.

But when it comes to believing/trusting others... Why would you trust someone 2000 years ago, who you did not even know above someone who is close to you and you trust? Think about that.. There's not a person on earth whom you would trust enough to believe a story like Johah if they told you they saw it happen. Yet, you are willing to believe the writings of someone who lived long ago from the bronze age, who you cannot possibly be sure is more trustworthy than people you see and know today?

I just think there's something inherently wrong with that. I know you'll dismiss it in having trust that the bible is god's word, but even you will concede that god didn't write the bible. Man did! Why you would trust a man you don't know, who lived 2000 years ago over your own mother is beyond me. I can somewhat understand your belief in god if it comes from personal experience. But seriously don't get the trusting of strangers over people you know and trust.

You can judge a plant by it's fruit, and if Jesus confirmed everything in the OT, it is safe to say that you can believe everything that is written in the OT.

so Jonah really lived in the whales belly for 3 days?

If you don't see the difference between the first statement I quoted above ("we DO know") and this statement ("we don't know"), then there's little more we can talk about. You're trying to say that we both know and don't know the necessary information to establish a probability.

Edit: The equivalent to this would be saying that because the first card in the deck is the 2 of diamonds, that all the cards in the decks are 2 of diamonds. It just doesn't work that way.

Except that Jesus never wrote anything down himself. Not one word (which in itself is great reason for skepticism). So once again, you are accepting the word of an ancient unknown over that of your own mother. Assuming you wouldn't even believe her if she told you she walked on water or rose someone from the dead.

aaron is frustrating me itt. that is all.

No. What I'm saying is that we do know some things. We do not know everything. But to pluck something which we may not know about and use that to negate all that we DO know about, is utterly irrational. It seems to me this is what you're doing.

You are implying that we should forget about all historical observation. All physical evidence. And thorough scientific testing, which has shown over and over again that X cannot happen. We should do this, because there might be something else we don't know about that caused it. And we should give at least equal weight to this possibility even though it goes against every single thing ever observed about the world. If that works for you...

You're using probabilities in two different senses, and it's worth pointing this out because it's probably where the confusion lies.

1) You can use "probability" in the case of full knowledge of the situation (flopping a set requires you to know what cards are in the deck).

2) You can use "probability" in the sense of attempting to establish a prior piece of information (such-and-such is an likely/unlikely event).

You're now using this in the second sense. You're trying to apply a certain class of historical data to ascertain information about a specific historical question. I agree (and have never disagreed) that this would cause you to arrive at a particular conclusion if this is how you're going to attempt to determine whether the event happened.

However, this method does not actually address the facts of the situation. Going back to the fish-car, you would say that it because fish have never been observed in the past, that the fish you and 999,999 other people saw must not have actually happened, even though all 1 million of you would attest to having seen it. In other words, even if it DID happen, you would never be able to convince yourself that it DID happen. You've essentially closed your mind off a priori to even the possibility of it happening, so you're assuming your conclusion.

The probability of being dealt AA in hold'em is 1/221. Let's say that you have a friend who is learning hold'em, and he's going to the casino for the very first time. Later on, he tells you that he had AA dealt to him on his first three hands at the table.

On the one hand, you can say that the probability that this happened is 1/10,793,861, and therefore it's extremely improbable that this actually happened to him. But he insists that it did. Do you reject his story because the chances of it actually happening are so small, or do you use something else to determine whether you believe your friend?

This is a gross mischaracterization of my position. In particular, I'm claiming that some events were not "natural" and therefore using "scientific testing" to try to account for them is an error. If I were to claim (for example) that Jesus were resurrected from the dead by purely natural causes, your criticism would be correct. However, that is not the claim. The claim is that there was a particular intervention with this individual that caused the event to happen. So "history" doesn't apply because I'm not making that type of claim. I'm looking at a specific case with a specific set of circumstances, and you're using a broad brush to try to wipe it away.

You are still not getting it. It has nothing to do with my faith in the person telling the story of Jonah. My acceptance of the story (if I do in fact accept it) is based on the historical evidence for Jesus being who he said he was, and his acceptance of said story.

So if I have concluded that God exists, and that Jesus was God incarnate, and Jesus accepted the story of Jonah as true, then I would be justified on my acceptance of the story of Jonah over the story of my buddy as I have good reason to believe that Jesus is reliable. It has nothing to do with the guy that wrote the story being more reliable then my buddy.

So how do you know this? And how would one know Jesus'/God's stance on the other thousand or so stories that are not referenced in the NT?