Good Question For Catholics and Others

[David Sklansky]

Why is almost everyone ignoring my question? I am simply asking whether you would believe a respected Pope who claimed he did a miracle given the feat could be duplicated by non miraculous, albeit very sophisticated, means.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is almost everyone ignoring my question? I am simply asking whether you would believe a respected Pope who claimed he did a miracle given the feat could be duplicated by non miraculous, albeit very sophisticated, means.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't ignore it, I gave you my answer so perhaps you'd return the favour. What is your answer before Randi's intervention?

chez

[maurile]

The answer is E, obviously. It's just a simple Bayes' Theorem problem.

[IronUnkind]

Okay.

What is the prior probability of said miracle?

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the prior probability of said miracle?

[/ QUOTE ]
Much lower than the prior probability that a Pope would lie.

[IronUnkind]

I'm looking for a specific answer. Too often Bayes theorem is invoked without any attendant mathematics.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm looking for a specific answer. Too often Bayes theorem is invoked without any attendant mathematics.

[/ QUOTE ]
Questioning the veracity of the pope is fine but you go too far if you bring Bayes into question [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

chez

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is the prior probability of said miracle?

[/ QUOTE ]
Much lower than the prior probability that a Pope would lie.

[/ QUOTE ]


I've read some ludicrous statements on 2+2 before. But this is one is tops. I tip my hat.

Popes are not only congenital liars; the edifice of the office and its complete history is a blackened blatant lie besmirched with thievery, avarice, human butchery, bloodthirstiness, downright silliness, intolerance, and the most gorgeous heaps of convoluted imbecility known in the annals of human idiocy.

Two links for your reading and viewing pleasure:

True Catholics

Antipopes?


The Yin-Yang Man

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is the prior probability of said miracle?

[/ QUOTE ]
Much lower than the prior probability that a Pope would lie.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've read some ludicrous statements on 2+2 before. But this is one is tops. I tip my hat.

[/ QUOTE ]


You must really trust the Pope a lot.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
whether you would believe a respected Pope who claimed he did a miracle given the feat could be duplicated

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, huff, "I've" been answering that in great detail [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Believing him is not the same as 'did it happen as it appeared'. Here are some scenarios -
a) He's in on some trick.
b) He's not in on it, just a pawn in it.
c) It's not a trick, just a weird situation, Randi illustrated only one explanation for it.

the OPs original question -
[ QUOTE ]
After Randi's news conference how sure would you be, as a Catholic, that the Pope's astonishing feat was done without using an obvious trick?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's an excluded middle situaton. It's not two opposite posibilities - Pope pulling trick vs Divine. I'd temporarily assume a 'trick' by someone but I'd be open to some weird 'natural' cause also. There is nothing that would suggest the supernatural now, but there wasn't before Randi's suggestion either.

luckyme