The resurrection of Jesus is both a man returning to life.  That does not say much.  Is he bleeding and still very ill and in danger of dying?  So we are told this man was brought back changed and able to walk through walls and live without food etc.  He comes back, saved, glorious and immortal.

That is not one miracle.  It is two.

The transformation one is clearly the biggest miracle.

Bayes Theorem is about assessing how probable a reported event is.  It is based on the prior data.  If we should not believe that seventy year olds can beat runners in their twenties fair enough.  But if it starts happening, that means we should believe Rodney 79 who says he outran forty people in their twenties in a race.  The Theorem is used by Christians to get around David Hume's insight, "A miracle report is more likely to be a lie or mistake. For example dead men stay dead so we should not lend much credence to the rising of Jesus from the dead."

Some say the return to life cannot be assessed by Bayes as there is a zero prior probability of it happening.

So the glorifying of Jesus in his return cannot be assessed by Bayes as there is a zero prior probability of it happening.

That is two.

Religion manipulatively wants you to think only of the return to life for that makes it easier to get over the Bayes hurdle.

The following argument can apply to either case.

What if we make a distinction between it just being improbable or the notion that it's improbable for such a wonder to happen for it to have to depend on writings from decades later?  There is no evidence that the gospel accounts of the returned Jesus even got rudimentary checking.

As the evidence is not good enough and is not even fit to be called evidence this does mean the Theorem gives the resurrection zero probability.  Moreover, if God does not want to force us to believe with evidence it is not stopping him from letting other people rise from the dead and letting us prove it.  Anyway, the view that God will not give us too much evidence for Jesus rising is nonsense.  Belief should be formed not by willpower or desire but by what the evidence teaches.  This is not forcing.  It is respect for how you need truth.

The Theorem if it could help a person be sensible when they say Jesus rose, is a total failure in showing Jesus was changed and immortal.  The immortality is more important than anything else and that is clearly outside the realm of science and evidence for you cannot put cameras on Jesus forever to see if he stays alive for all eternity.  The gospels never mention what condition Jesus was in.  He never said he would live forever when he was appearing to the apostles.  Nobody claimed to be writing about how they tested him or touched him or anything.  The Thomas story is no good. Thomas touches the body but Thomas never wrote this so it is hearsay not evidence.

We conclude then that Hume was right.  No otherwise sensible person is being sensible if they say Jesus rose from the dead to eternal life.

Lourdes etc
Free Books