Rick O'Sheikh Points Out an "Undesigned Coincidence" About The Judeo-Christian god Yahweh

What are undesigned coincidences in the Bible? AI Overview: An undesigned coincidence is an apologetic argument used to support the historical reliability of biblical narratives by pointing out subtle, interlocking details that fit together naturally across independent accounts. It occurs when one biblical text leaves a detail vague or raises a natural question, and a completely separate passage—often incidentally—supplies the missing piece of information.

The Argument: Proponents argue that separate writers would not accidentally include such seamlessly matching, trivial details unless their accounts were rooted in genuine historical memories rather than fabrication or collusion.

YouTube·A Christian Perspective: Origins: Popularized by Anglican theologian John James Blunt in 1847 and built upon William Paley’s 1790 work, the method has seen a modern revival through contemporary authors like Lydia and Timothy McGrew.

Famous Examples

The Feeding of the 5,000 (John and Luke): In John 6:5, Jesus specifically asks Philip where they can buy bread. John's gospel does not explain why he singles out Philip. However, Luke 9:10 notes that the event took place near Bethsaida, and John 1:44 mentions elsewhere that Philip is from Bethsaida. Combined, it makes local sense why Jesus turned to Philip.

The Green Grass (Mark and John): Mark 6:39–40 is the only gospel to mention that the crowd sat down on "green grass". John 6:4 casually notes that the Passover (springtime) was near. Around the Sea of Galilee, grass is only green shortly after spring rains, aligning the two small details without any sign of forced coordination.

Critical Perspectives

Alternative Explanations: Academic critics and scholars note that these connections can often be accounted for by literary dependence (one gospel author copying or adapting another) or shared oral traditions rather than independent eyewitness corroboration.

Skepticism: Critics also argue that finding these "puzzles" can be subjective, relying on reading harmonization into texts that may have slight geographical or structural tensions (such as differing locations or timelines in source criticism).

Now here comes Rick O'Sheikh, who points out a "Counter Designed Coincidence", an important fact that is counter to what evangelicals say about an undesigned coincidence (!):

Three Hard Hitting Posts by Richard Carrier

1. Christianity Is a Conspiracy Theory.

In essence all supernaturalist theories are conspiracy theories, only wherein the conspirators are gods and angels and other superbeings—including, even, Satan, demons, and their secret devilish cabals, because they conveniently also further the conspiracy by suddenly keeping quiet about it and hiding even their own existence in opposition, however inconsistently Christians believe they do. Which is what makes the Christian conspiracy so much less likely than any other: you have to posit additional entities, wholly bizarre entities, for which there is no evidence, nor evidence of their even having any cosmic plausibility, much less having the strange and hyper-specific motives required.

2. Apologetics Is a Grift.

In practice, apologetics means “defending a claim against all the evidence refuting it.” Which more often than not requires lying; making apologetics, really, an art of lying. Lying by omission is the most common method; but most apologists inevitably resort to outright lies, deliberate distortions, or creating a false flight. Even honest apologists can fall into this trap eventually (see Comparing Apologetical Methods: Jonathan Sheffield vs. Michael Licona), because the function of apologetics is not to determine the truth, but to shield a belief from the truth. And there really aren’t any effective ways to do that honestly. Apologetics is therefore inherently corrupting of one’s integrity and intellect. Few who devote themselves to it survive its poison.

3. Your Forebears Murdered Their Way into Your Mind

Christianity and Islam cannot survive true religious freedom because they only exist today because of their core DNA of religious oppression. By violently colonizing the globe, Christianity colonized your mind. You are only a Christian or a Muslim because of mass global murder. Not because of evidence, utility, or wisdom.

Why Did Jesus Change His Mind So Much?

The better question: Why did the gospel authors create such different Jesus-Script? 

The general consensus of non-evangelical New Testament scholars is that the gospels were written many decades after the death of Jesus: all of them were created after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 C.E. We don’t know who the gospel authors were—the traditional names we’re so used to were attached to them later. Nor do we know where they got their information; the witnesses to Jesus would surely have passed from the scene by that time. But it’s a major error to assume that the gospel authors were trying to write history. Each in his own way was trying to promote the Jesus sect/cult. They fully qualify as propagandists. 

There’s nothing wrong with that, but readers today must be aware that this was their goal, their game.

"Horrendous Suffering Effectively Refutes God" By John Loftus

Here's a direct link to my paper on the minimal approach to the problem of evil, titled Horrendous Suffering Effectively Refutes God. It appeared in the Freedom from Religion Foundation's monthly newsletter. Please share! [For the record I'm in Facebook jail. I didn't do anything different than I usually do.]

Why Are the Devout Okay with Demons, Superstitions, and Magical Thinking?

Because they don’t grasp that the gospels are fantasy literature

It seems to me that most of the devout who attend church are not obsessed with studying history and science—nor are they aware of implications of seeing their faith in the context in which it arose. They have been coached/trained not to do so by their religious leaders. But it doesn’t take very much curiosity to detect the signs, the clues, that the gospels are fantasies. Right at the start of Matthew’s gospel—who the author actually was, nobody knows—we find a genealogy demonstrating the Joseph was descended from king David; this pedigree seems to have been an essential credential for Joseph’s son to have qualified as messiah. But then we read that his betrothed, Mary, was made pregnant by the holy spirit. Joseph decided to divorce her quietly, but an angel told him in a dream what had happened—so he changed his mind. The author then quotes a text from Isaiah 7:14—or rather misquotes it, since he was familiar with the Septuagint translation of this text which reads virgin, not a young woman which is in the original text. 

But the author of the gospel apparently didn’t notice the major flaw here: why provide a genealogy to prove Joseph was descended from David—but then claim that Joseph was not the father of Jesus, after all? Maybe he did notice it, but just didn’t care because his specialty was writing fantasy literature. Moreover, Joseph getting a message from an angel in a dream is also a fragment of fantasy. It’s worth noting, by the way, that virgin birth is not mentioned in either Mark or John.

An Earlier Draft of "An Atheist Morality without God"

When readers look at my paper, "An Atheist Morality without God", the first thing seen is that I had trouble getting it passed peer review.

Submission received: 2 March 2025/Revised: 22 September 2025 / Accepted: 3 November 2025 / Published: 12 November 2025

One peer reviewer wanted to debate me about the problem of horrendous suffering in my first few paragraphs. I thought what I said was pertinent. But this reviewer was not giving an inch, some criticisms of which were ignorant. Dr. Sterba suggested he or she felt threatened by what I wrote and wasn't going to accept the paper unless I deleted that part, so I did.  

Here is the contested part: 

On God and Horrendous Suffering

When it comes to horrendous suffering I have written several chapters in my books on it, plus edited, God and Horrendous Suffering (2021). The force of this problem is much greater for evangelicals, who believe a perfectly good, all powerful, all knowing theistic God exists, who allegedly inspired the horrific tales in the Bible, including sending people into an eternal conscious torment in hell. That explains why evangelical apologists like William Lane Craig said, “The problem of evil is certainly the greatest obstacle to belief in the existence of God. When I ponder both the extent and depth of suffering in the world, whether due to man’s inhumanity to man or to natural disasters, then I must confess that I find it hard to believe that God exists.”1

Christian philosopher James F. Sennett echoed what Craig said: “By far the most important objection to the faith is the so-called problem of evil—the alleged incompatibility between the existence or extent of evil in the world and the existence of God. I tell my philosophy of religion students that, if they are Christians and the problem of evil does not keep them up at night, then they don’t understand it.”2 The force of this problem is perhaps the greatest for Calvinists who believe in theological determination, as opposed to non-Calvinists who believe in free will.

The Gospel Authors Tried So Hard to Prove Resurrection, Part 2

But the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection fail basic standards

In my article posted here last Friday, I discussed the major flaws in Matthew’s story about dead saints coming alive in their tombs when Jesus died, then wandering in Jerusalem on the first Easter Sunday. Also, I analyzed the account of Jesus raising Lazarus, found only in John 11. Neither of these stories stand up to careful, critical analysis; they both sprang from the imaginations of their authors. 

But what about the gospel depictions of the resurrection of Jesus himself? Are they more to be trusted? Well, unfortunately not. As Robert Conner has pointed out, according to the gospels, nobody actually witnessed the resurrection of Jesus. Let’s take a look at all four, beginning with the first to be written.

What would you recommend for seekers who want answers given the terrible Kathmandu disaster?

 

 

Given the terrible Kathmandu disaster in Nepal, along with the Grand Canyon flash flood, what would you recommend for seekers who want answers? I could list a whole library of references but what of these four?

I would choose this one, a shorter primer can be found here.

The Gospel Authors Tried So Hard to Prove Resurrection

But they took a totally wrong approach—and failed totally

Whenever an event or episode is reported in only one gospel, we have every right to be suspicious. How did the other gospel authors fail to notice, neglect to report, something that Jesus supposedly did or said? Or something that happened as a consequence of a Jesus-event? The author of Matthew’s gospel states that, when Jesus died on the cross—and this is found only in Matthew:

“The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many.”  Matthew 27:52-53

How does the resurrection of a physical human body—in any way—prove the existence of eternal life? A very obvious question has to be: What happened to these resurrected saints after their wandering about Jerusalem on that first Easter morning? Did they make it back to their tombs and return to being dead? If this was the case, the temporary resurrection of their physical bodies fails to confirm eternal life.

God and Horrendous Suffering, 2nd Edition (2026)

My anthology God and Horrendous Suffering (2026) is my last book. To get a copy of it click here. Other important links you can follow include a written debate I had on this issue with Dr. Don McIntosh at The Secular Web, plus a video on YouTube by Michael Maletin, as narrated by Seth Andrews. It has gained some fantastic blurbs! 

  

With this anthology I have written, co-written, edited, and co-edited enough books on enough topics that, taken as a whole, they can be compared to a small encyclopedia, addressing all of the crucially important issues Christians must face when honestly considering the truth of their faith. 

 

I’m very grateful for the authors who have written chapters for my books, along with those who wrote the forewords and blurbs. I’m also very grateful to my readers for their encouragement over the years, and their recommendations of my books to others.  

 

There are even translations of my books. The one on the left is an Arabic translation of The Case against Miracles--translated as Essays on Miracles. Arabic is a Semitic language (related to Hebrew). The other one is a Persian translation of Why I Became an Atheist, which is an Indo-European language (related to English and French). A Korean translation of a third book is pictured in the comments.

 

 

 The first edition of God and Horrendous Suffering was published in 2021 by the Global Center for Religious Research (GCRR), which was headed up by Darren Slade. We were finalizing  a 2nd edition when he abruptly put a halt to it, defaulting on his contracts with his authors, and releasing them back to us.  [If you're a published author with GRCC you too are released from your book contract!] 

Speaking of Someone Who Deconverted Away From Christianity, Choose Me!

      We are currently speaking of conversion and deconversion stories, yes?  Well, I received this email today:

       Hi, I'm ______. I read mostly books that challenge what I think I know and don't let me off easy. I'm that reader who follows the arguments carefully and sits with the uncomfortable questions. I don't reach out to authors often, maybe twice a year. So when I do, it's because the book made me reevaluate something I assumed was settled.

    Your book, Why I Became an Atheist, did that, specifically the way you systematically walk through your deconstruction without making it sound easy or painless. Most conversion stories or deconversion stories feel dramatic. Yours felt like watching someone do the hard work of thinking honestly, and that honesty made it harder to dismiss. The Outsider Test for Faith is a framework I kept coming back to because it asks a question that's simple to state but brutal to sit with.

      A few of us are doing a reading challenge right now, tracking our most unexpected reads of the year. Yours landed on my list because it wasn't just an argument against belief. It was a case study in intellectual integrity, and I think that's rare in this genre.

      I'm not asking for anything. But I caught the preacher's precision behind the atheist's critique. Most readers will take the arguments and move on. I think you wrote it so they'd have to test their own assumptions the way you tested yours.

   

     Did you intentionally write the book as a form of intellectual autobiography rather than just a polemic, and did that structure emerge from your own process of leaving?

     When you designed The Outsider Test for Faith, were you more focused on exposing cognitive bias in believers, or were you also testing your own former beliefs against the same standard?

I responded as follows: 

 

     Thanks for the kind words, _____. It’s always rewarding to hear that the intellectual weight of my books resonates with readers.

     To your questions: Yes, the autobiographical structure was essential because I needed to demonstrate the actual process of thinking honestly, not just the finished arguments. Regarding the Outsider Test, it is a mirror I judged my beliefs against. I had to apply the same rigorous standard to my own former beliefs as I expected from others; if the test didn't apply to me first, it wouldn't have been a fair test at all.

     Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts,

     John W. Loftus

"I Used to be an Atheist Too, But Now I’m a Christian," by Harry McCall

[This is from one of Harry McCall's posts in the archives. It seems kinda relevant given Joe Schmid's conversion to Catholicism. It's aimed at most *atheist* conversion stories, JWL].

 

From time to time here at D.C. we get the apologetic defense of Christianity from a so called former atheist. It’s not that these former atheist were actively engaged in the study of why God and Christianity, as expressed in the Bible, is not true. But rather these individuals were simply (by default) basically irreligious / nonreligious.

Without having done any objective scholarship (apart from the popular ecclesiastical books, broadcast media, and socializing with people of faith which formed their view of God and Christianity), the world of these former self proclaimed atheists is highly subjective. They may even have felt legitimate in who they claimed to be by the fact that the term “atheist” evokes a stark and sharp reaction from the general religious population. Thus, the real question needs to be raised: Are ALL NON-RELIGIOUS or (better yet) ANTI-RELIGIOUS people atheist? 

Musings On Joe Schmid Who Just Converted to Catholicism. @MajestyofReason

Here's the link to the YouTube video where Joe Schmid reveals he converted to Catholicism. It has 101 thousand views in just three days. [How much revenue does that get?] On Facebook John Hanby said this about Schmid's conversion: "Joe Schmid is proof that no one is safe. He's one of the most brilliant young philosophers in the world. He's written, what, 20? Philosophy of Religion papers. And has been a paradigm of rationality and critical thinking."

So today I want to offer a few general and applicable responses.

First off, this doesn't mean anyone else should become a Catholic just because Schmid did. The main reason is due to the brain's incapacity to come to correct conclusions when there are between 150-180 known cognitive biases, any one of which can affect our cogitations concerning the case for Catholicism. In other words, no one thinks with impeccably pure logic like we might imagine from Star Treck's character Spock. There is always room for doubt. Here's Why Doubt Is The Adult Attitude And How Science Helps Us. Science is going to answer our most important questions if they can be answered at all.

Secondly, let's look at some statistics: In 2009 David Chalmers of the Australian National University and David Bourget of London University, surveyed professional philosophers and others on their philosophical views. The survey was taken by 3226 respondents, including 1803 philosophy faculty members and/or PhDs and 829 philosophy graduate students, which can be seen here. The question that interests me is what philosophers think about God.

God: theism or atheism?
Accept or lean toward: atheism 678 / 931 (72.8%)
Accept or lean toward: theism 136 / 931 (14.6%)
Other 117 / 931 (12.5%)

If we add in the "other" category, which would include New Age beliefs, Deism, and Agnosticism, then upwards to 86% of them are not theists. Among those philosophers who are theists I dare say most of them are probably not card carrying Evangelicals, since this includes Catholics, Muslims, Jews and those who merely accept the philosopher's god.

So much for William Lane Craig's claim that there is a renaissance of Christian philosophy in today's world. *cough* Anthony Gottlieb concludes that among specialists in the philosophy of religion--as opposed to Political Philosophy, Social Philosophy, Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Science and the Philosophy of Language--"Philosophy of religion specialists are more likely to favor theism (72:19)." Link.

The Great Adventure of Reading the Bible, Cover-to-Cover

But right out of the gate, the book of Genesis is a bumpy ride of bad theology

In articles I posted here on 12 July 2026 and 18 July 2026, I described the defective theology to be found just in the first eleven chapters of Genesis. But things don’t improve as we move on to chapter 12, the beginning of the saga of folklore that depicts the wanderings and achievements of the Hebrew people. The careful, thoughtful reader should be curious: how can any of this be verified? Serious scholars have known for a long time that verification is not possible, hence the conclusion—not at all uncommon—that Abraham, Joseph, and Moses are fictional folklore heroes, not people who really lived. Especially when readers are making their way through the tedious genealogies, they should be skeptical: these long lists cannot be verified; they too are part of the folklore.

Visit My "Academia.edu" Papers

I have published papers for Academia.edu, a few of which aren't found elsewhere. Here they are in one Link.

---A Minimal Facts Approach to the Problem of Evil. In my anthology, God and Horrendous Suffering, my focus as an author is on heinous, hideous, horrific levels of horrendous suffering given the belief in a theistic God who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfect good. Unless we focus on that kind of suffering, the kind that seems needless and absolutely inexplicable, we'll fail to see the problem of evil for what it is. Instead of focusing on bruises, sprained ankles, slaps on the cheek, a clump of hair being pulled out, or sicknesses like colds and the flu, let's focus instead on people who have been burned alive, boiled alive, and buried alive. This paper is set to be published in the Freedom from Religion Foundation's next monthly publication!

---Hume's Four Suplemental Arguments Against Miracles. David Hume argued that the prior probability of a miracle is infinitely low because it violates established laws of nature. Consequently, the likelihood of human testimony being mistaken will almost always outweigh the probability of the miracle itself, making it irrational to believe. Often neglected, David Hume offered four additional or supplemental arguments that discussed the "likelihood" and "false positive rate" in Part 2 of Chapter 10 of the Enquiry.

I think David Hume didn't revise or edit his chapter after knowing about Bayes is because he already used the structure of Bayes in his chapter! Plus, in his philosophical proof he already argued against the possibility of human testimony to overcome the laws of nature. After that destruction what else did Hume need to say?

---Preface, Blurbs, Contents and Introduction to "God and Horrendous Suffering" 2nd Edition. This paper contains the Preface, Blurbs, Contents, and Full Introduction to "God and Horrendous Suffering" 2nd Edition.

More Examples of Disappointing, Inferior, Even Alarming Jesus-Script

The devout might snap out of it—if they faced these texts honestly

A primary example of the dishonesty of New Testament translators is printing the supposed real words of Jesus in red. Even conservative, evangelical translators know that there is no way at all to verify that Jesus spoke these words. They thrive on the delusion that the words in red were divinely inspired. But that is not how responsible historians operate; they want to know the sources, that is, where did the gospel authors find the contemporary documentation (e.g., letters, diaries and other archival records) by which to verify that these words were spoken by Jesus.

Beware of Cult Fanatics and Propagandists

It’s not hard to spot the craziness

If you live in a small town or big city, chances are there’s a lovely public park where you can have a good time. There may be a space for entertainers to display their talents and provide pleasant diversions. But occasionally this space may be used by religious folks who want to proclaim the message about their one true faith. There’s no harm in hearing what they have to say, right? But anyone who is in touch with the realities of the modern world can quickly identify the weird ideas that are being proclaimed.

Hume's Four Suplemental Arguments Against Miracles Vs Michael Licona

As mentioned in a previous post, David Hume argued that the prior probability of a miracle is infinitely low because it violates established laws of nature. Consequently, the likelihood of human testimony being mistaken will almost always outweigh the probability of the miracle itself, making it irrational to believe.

But what's often neglected is that Hume offered four supplemental arguments that discussed the "likelihood" and "false positive rate" of miracles in Part 2 of Chapter 10 of the Enquiry. This part of Hume's chapter comes after he presented his general disproof of miracles in Part 1. I think Hume didn't revise his chapter after learning about Bayes, because he had already used the structure of Bayes in his chapter! In the first part he presented his philosophical disproof against the abject improbability of human testimony for miracles that must overcome the laws of nature. This burden is made heavier when considering uncorroborated miracle claims for which we cannot interogate the alleged people mentioned in the biblical texts. After that destruction what else did Hume need to say in Part 2? But he had more to say.

Here's an excerpt from my long chapter on miracles in Why I Became an Atheist (2012), titled, Hume's Four Suplemental Arguments Against Miracles. My focus is on Michael Licona's arguments against Hume. I think I could do a better job of this if you combined other chapters I mentioned. If you want to read the whole chapter with endnotes you'll have to get the book. What? You haven't done so yet? ;-)

A.I. On Bayes Theorem Stressing David Hume's Contribution!

"Is Bayes theorem a legitimate tool to evaluate miracles in the Bible?" 

------
Yes, Bayes’ Theorem is a legitimate mathematical and philosophical tool for evaluating biblical miracles. However, because the theorem requires subjective inputs—like the initial probability of a miracle occurring and the reliability of ancient texts—scholars debate how definitively it can prove or disprove specific events. [1, 2, 3]

The Bayesian Formula:

Bayes’ theorem calculates the probability of a hypothesis (H) being true given certain evidence (E).

The Components:

Evaluating miracles using this theorem involves three key factors:

[1] Prior Probability P(M):

Your initial assessment of the likelihood of a miracle occurring before considering the specific evidence. Skeptics often argue this is near zero, while proponents argue it is higher based on the existence of an active, intervening Creator. [1, 3, 4]

Likelihood P(T|M):

The probability that we would have the existing historical records and testimony if the miracle actually happened. [1]

False Positive Rate \(P(T\vert{}\sim M)\):

The probability of getting that same testimony or record even if the miracle did not happen (e.g., due to human error, legend, or deception). [1]

The Debate in Scholarship:

While the method itself is logically sound, applying it to the Bible sparks intense scholarly disagreement: [1, 2]

The Skeptic's View:

Philosopher David Hume argued that the prior probability of a miracle is infinitely low because it violates established laws of nature. Consequently, the likelihood of human testimony being mistaken will almost always outweigh the probability of the miracle itself, making it irrational to believe. [*See Below]

Anselm "Faith Seeking Confirmation"

[First published 5/18/20] I think Anselm's dictum "faith seeking understanding" is to be understood in the history of theology and philosophy to be equivalent to "Faith Seeking Confirmation." If that's how it's historically used then that's what it means. Below is an updated edit from chapter 2 of my my book, Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End.

There is a common theme among St. Anselm's work and the work of other obfuscationist theologians and philosophers that needs to be highlighted. It’s called faith seeking confirmation. We see this in Anselm with regard to his new atonement theory and his ontological argument.

Anselm therefore is exhibit “A” in defense of what atheist philosopher Stephen Law said: “Anything based on faith, no matter how ludicrous, can be made to be consistent with the available evidence, given a little patience and ingenuity.”1 If I could pick one sentence, one aphorism, one proverb that highlights the main reason philosophy of religion (PoR) must end, it’s Law’s. I’ll call it Law’s law of faith.

We Already Use Bayes' Formula

Via John Earman.

I guarantee you that everyone uses Bayes' formula whenever considering new information. We ask ourselves implicitly and/or explicitly what the Pr (probability) is of a new H (hypothesis) given E (evidence) and our K (background knowledge).

That is, when considering a new hypothesis we fact-check it based on the evidence plus our existing background knowledge.  

Of course we do this imperfectly, sometimes woefully so, but we try.

The only question left is when and where should we use the math.

“He’s Got the Whole World in His Hands”

Oh please, give me a break: It's ridiculous bragging!  

For a long time I have suggested that people should carefully study—and absorb the truth about—World War I. In John Loftus’ Second Edition of God and Horrendous Suffering, he included my essay, The Problem of World War I, in which I present the case that this brutal conflict should have put an end to belief in a good, caring, all-powerful god. World War II reenforces this conclusion, as Darrell Ray has pointed out in his book, The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Cultures: 

“It took two world wars for Europeans to realize that the prayers of millions of people were not answered. It doesn’t take much intelligence to see that god isn’t working too well when 92 million people died in two world wars, or to see the complicity and cooperation of the Pope, Lutheran clergy and Christians with Hitler during WWII.” (page 75)

Bayes Theorem and Miracles: Three Cases Studies:

Philosopher Michael P. Levine writes a bit eccentrically about miracles but he also has some incisive things to say. For people who think David Hume’s arguments against miracles are obsolete and should be ignored, Levine says, “The locus classicus for modern and contemporary philosophical discussion of miracles is Chapter X (‘Of Miracles’) of David Hume’s Enquiries.”[1] [“Locus classicus is a Latin term used in literature, law, and other academic fields. It refers to the original or most authoritative passage or source for a particular word, phrase, concept, or idea. In other words, it is the classical or standard example that is most often cited as the definitive reference for a subject.”] So he proceeds to analyze what Hume wrote.

He tells us “there are various versions of Bayes’s theorem,” not just one, depending on the hypothesis to be resolved. With miracles they are many. He highlights John Earman’s formulation:

“The reader is invited to think of H as a hypothesis at issue; K as the background knowledge; and E as the additional evidence. Pr(H/E&K) is called the posterior probability of H. [i.e., the Probability of the Hypothesis divided by the background Knowledge]. Whereas Pr(H/K) and Pr(E/H&K) are respectively called the prior probability of H and the (posterior) likelihood of E.”[2]

Labeling this as “Hume’s argument” Levine adds: 

On the interpretation of Hume’s argument given above, a Bayesian analysis sheds no light whatsoever on the structure or substance of the argument, and can do nothing by way of either supporting or refuting the argument. Indeed, any Bayesian analysis of the question of justified belief in miracles must be otiose until the difficult and essential questions concerning “evidence” in relation to an allegedly miraculous occurrence are resolved - at which point any Bayesian analysis will add little except the technical complexity of a formal apparatus that may or may not “clarify” the structure of Hume’s argument. The balancing of probabilities is of no use until it is decided what goes into the balance - that is, what constitutes the evidence.[3]

Let's Highlight the Evidence (E). This is the crucial factor regardless of one’s background knowledge (K) or priors. Regarding a Christian Bayesian analysis, Levine comments, “The idea that the Bible provides historically acceptable grounds for believing in miracles reflects a wish-fulfilling rendering of what constitutes evidence.”[4] Everything hangs on the quantity and the quality of the evidence. It’s the indispensable input, the essential element, and the non-negotiable necessity.

On Miracles and the Importance of Contexts, Perspectives, Priors, Background Information, and Bayes Theorem

--Norman Geisler, a Christian apologist, is on record as saying:

The mere fact of the resurrection cannot be used to establish the truth that there is a God. For the resurrection cannot even be a miracle unless there already is a God. . . . The real problem for the Christian apologist is to find some way apart from the mere facts themselves to establish the justifiability of interpreting the facts in a theistic way. . . . No fact, event, or series thereof within an overall framework which derives all of its meaning from the framework can be determinative of the framework which bestows that meaning on it. For no fact or set of facts can of and by themselves, apart from any meaning or interpretation given to them, establish which of the alternative viewpoints should be taken on the fact(s). [Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker House, 1976), see pp. 94–98.]

Geisler's perspective stands in stark contrast to other ways of knowing whether Jesus arose from the dead. Geisler was endorsing Classical apologetics. Evidentialist apologetics by contrast, basically rejects it, since it seeks first and foremost the evidence.

--I. Howard Marshal. According to Christian scholar Marshall in his book, I Believe in the Historical Jesus (Eerdmans, 1977) “many historians—the great majority in fact—would say that miracles fall outside their orbit as historians. For to accept the miraculous as a possibility in history is to admit an irrational element which cannot be included under the ordinary laws of history. The result is that the historian believes himself justified in writing a ‘history’ of Jesus in which the miraculous and supernatural do not appear in historical statements. The ‘historical’ Jesus is an ordinary man. To some historians he is that and no more. To others, however, the possibility is open that he was more than an ordinary man—but this possibility lies beyond the reach of historical study as such.” (p. 59).

--William Lane Craig is on record as saying:

"J.L. Mackie's critique of miracles is particularly shockingly superficial."

Craig said this in his paper, The Resurrection of Theism, Endnote # 19. Craig was commenting on the late J.L. Mackie's book, The Miracle of Theism. Craig was prompted to say this while reading Alvin Plantinga’s critique of it titled, Is Theism Really a Miracle?, in Faith and Philosophy, [April 1986].

--J.L. Mackie by contrast argued against the belief in miracles. Is he really "shockingly superficial"? Let me quote from him since it's so good:

Every Human Is Born Into a Vast Bubble of Ignorance

Religion seems to benefit the most from this reality

The majority of humans seem unaware of their ignorance, and simply want to thrive as best they can in the world, have a good time, be entertained. But then there are some who are also born with curiosity. They want to know and learn, to find out as much as they can about our world and the cosmos. Religions in general are nervous about curious people. I’ve mentioned quite a few times what an elderly Catholic woman once told me—and it is worth repeating: “The priests told us never to think about what we learned in catechism."

Why Didn't David Hume Respond Upon Knowing Bayes Theorem?

I'm currently trying to resurrect David Hume from the dead. We've established that David Hume knew of Bayes Theorem and had two chances to edit his chapter "Of Miracles" in response, but didn't. This seems to be "a deliberate philosophical position," per William Vanderburgh.

As an author I've published a great many blog posts, papers, and books about a whole lot of issues; a small encyclopedia of them, if you will. The more that one publishes the more of a context informed readers have for understanding an author on a separate issue. So let's consider the relevant books of David Hume, apart from his History of England which was a massively influential six-volume historical work that thrust him into fame. Let's see if there's a reason he didn't respond to Bayes Theorem. (In what follows A.I. insisted that I let her help a bit.)

A Treatise of Human Nature was published in London in multiple volumes between 1739 and 1740. Together it was Hume’s most comprehensive philosophical work. It breaks down the origins of human knowledge, ideas, cause and effect, personal identity, the passions, and morality.

An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748). A more accessible, revised version of the first book of the Treatise. It specifically addresses skepticism, our understanding of cause and effect, free will, and the critique of miracles. Thomas Bayes’s work on probability appeared posthumously in 1763. His friend Richard Price discovered the manuscript and published it posthumously in 1767 along with his explanation of Bayesian methods for assessing miracles. We know Hume read Price's paper and liked it. But Hume neither addressed Bayesian arguments nor revised his account of miracles for the 1768 and 1777 editions of his Enquiry.

An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751): Hume’s dedicated work on ethics. By relying on empirical observations of human nature rather than abstract religious or rationalist dogmas, Hume presents morality as a practical, natural tool designed by humans to foster social harmony and mutual well-being.

The Natural History of Religion (1757). Hume treats religious history as a natural, secular phenomenon, fundamentally undermining the belief that religion is inherently rooted in reason or divine revelation.

Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779). His last book published posthumanously. It explores the psychological and sociological origins of religious belief, arguing that religion stems not from rational contemplation or innate knowledge of God, but from the emotional drives of human nature, primarily fear, anxiety, and the desire for security.

An Excerpt from My 2019 Book, "The Case against Miracles"

David Hume’s arguments against miracles succeed despite the fact he didn’t use Bayes’ Theorem. William Vanderburg briefly addresses this issue in his article for Hume Studies.[1] He shows Hume was aware of Bayes’ Theorem but didn’t think he needed it to make his argument. 

Earman chastises Hume for being unaware of Bayesianism and of mathematical probability generally. This is unfair on two counts. First, Bayes’s work on probability was not widely known in 1748 when Hume published the first edition of the Enquiry. Richard Price arranged the posthumous publication of Bayes’s essay only in 1763, and it remained obscure even after its publication; Price’s paper applying Bayesian methods to the evidence for miracles appeared in 1767. We know Hume read and admired that paper, but he neither addressed Bayesian arguments nor revised his account of miracles for the 1768 and 1777 editions of the Enquiry. This suggests that Hume ultimately did not view Bayes’s work as relevant to the argument against miracles. Second, Hume’s discussion of the probability of chances “shows without controversy that he was familiar with the basic concepts of probability based on the calculus of chances.” Given Hume’s familiarity with Pascalian probability in general, and his acquaintance (through Price) with Bayesian ideas, his non-numerical treatment of the evidential probability of miracles must be seen as a deliberate philosophical position, not as a result of negligence or ignorance.[2]

         What Hume is aiming at is seen in his general maxim: “Therefore we may establish it as a maxim, that no human testimony can have such force as to prove a miracle, and make it a just foundation for any such system of religion.” His twofold contention is not only that mere testimonial evidence for a miracle is insufficient for believing in a miracle, but also that miracles cannot be an adequate foundation for a religion. Hume is undercutting miracles and any religion born of miracles in one fell swoop. Going for the jugular vein of miracles does all the work, for it also deals a death blow to the religion of any miracle working god.

If miracles are the foundation for a religion, then an apologist for that religion cannot bring up a miracle working god to establish his supposed miracles. For miracles are supposed to be the basis for the religion and its miracle working god. One cannot reason backwards from the existence of their god to the miracle testimonies in the Bible. For the issue is whether the god of these miracles exists in the first place.

Don McIntosh Responds: "Reaffirming Belief in Miracles: A Brief Rebuttal to Loftus"

ABSTRACT:

In a hard-hitting and comprehensive reply to a previous paper by Don McIntosh defending the rationality of belief in miracles, John Loftus argued that McIntosh’s defenses are ultimately self-defeating: his denial of laws of nature in particular, coupled with his religious definition of miracles as “signs and wonders,” would leave no way to distinguish miracles from very rare but natural occurrences. In turn that would leave no way to discern true from false miracle claims, including the ancient and unverifiable claims in the Bible made by credulous and superstitious people. In this brief rebuttal McIntosh pushes back against Loftus’ arguments affirming inductive reasoning and the laws of nature/science, as well as his arguments against the divine creation of life, predictive prophecy, and miracles in the Gospels. McIntosh concludes that in light of the relevant information available, belief in a miracle-working God is rationally justified.

You can find it at The Secular Web. I don't care that much to respond. Perhaps my readers would want to do that?

On Resurrecting David Hume From the Dead!

I chose this title due to the double entendre. Hume, of course, might roll over in his grave if he saw it expressed in terms of a miracle. ;-) Here's what I wrote in my book, describing the uphill problem I have in defending David Hume on miracles in The Case against Miracles, p. 552].

Since Christians are convinced Hume’s arguments against miracles have been “refuted” (per William Lane Craig in a personal conversation), some atheists are trying to reach out to Christians by avoiding Hume entirely. Benjamin Blake Speed Watkins, who Hosts and Produces Real Atheology – A Philosophy of Religion Podcast, is one of them. He said, “I see arguments against miracles as separate from Hume. We can have substantive discussion without ever appealing to him.” Now this can be done, I don’t doubt. But I don’t see the need to do it. I also think we should give credit where credit is due. I can’t imagine ignoring David Hume, the philosopher who originally put the issue of miracles up for discussion, like no other had done before. That would be an injustice. I understand that Christians identify the best arguments against miracles with Hume’s arguments. I also understand they think Hume’s arguments fail. So I’m not oblivious they conclude that with Hume’s demise so also goes the case against miracles. Just the same, it makes sense to defend Hume if he can be defended, and I think he can. When we do so successfully it doubly undercuts Christian apologetics. For not only do we show Hume’s arguments defeat the believability of miracles. By showing Christians are wrong about Hume, it also shows how badly they argue their case on behalf of miracles.

Richard Carrier recently said I'm wrong to try, via email:

I think Hume should be dealt with much more briefly as having said something useful but centuries obsolete and thus no longer worth distracting ourselves with. That just helps theists, because they can throw up sand and argue endlessly over his choice of sentences and wording, when we could just say “why are you still talking about that, that’s centuries obsolete?” and thus pull the rug out from under that entire tactic. Force them instead to deal directly with the modern math. They will have a far harder time coming up with convoluted rhetoric to evade simple math than to make hay out of some long dead provocateur's 18th century prose.

Then again:

I don’t see value in trying to fix or explain hundreds years old obsolete stuff, even when clever or historically important. That wastes a lot of energy to no point. It’s great if you are doing history of the 18th century or something. But in philosophy, the name “Hume” should have no value argumentatively. So I think it’s pointless to try and fix “him.” Forget him. We have the benefit of two hundred plus years of scientific, logical, and mathematical advances since. We should just formulate the correct argument and be done with it. His name never need be mentioned; and mentioning it is just a distraction that triggers the howling monkeys of Christian apologetics. Make them confront the correct argument, rather than waste time arguing over what Hume’s centuries-old selection of words meant. Which fits into my ideal principle: never give a Christian an opening to derail a conversation by arguing over irrelevant trivia instead of the actual point being made. Try to prevent rather than facilitate that. It’s hard. But it should be the best aim.

From the outset, just to be sure, I have argued against miracles without depending on Hume. I mentioned him twice in two papers with just one link each. I did so for The Secular Web. One is titled, Hail Mary: Was Virgin Mary Truly the Mother of God’s Son?, and another one is titled, Assessing McIntosh’s Sophisticated Defense of Miracles.

How Can Belief in a Smart, Loving God Survive a Thoughtful Reading of Genesis 1-11 ???

There are too many flawed, naïve ideas about an ancient god in these pages

In my article I posted here a few days ago, I described a few of the problems posed by the first few chapters of Genesis 1-11. The most horrifying of which is Yahweh’s genocide designed to kill off all human and animal life on the earth—well, the earth as it was understood at the time. Only Noah’s family, and the animals he had collected in the ark survived. This is extraordinarily bad behavior on the part of this god. How can modern devout folks brush it off, overlook it—or pretend it wasn’t so bad?

William Vanderburgh On "Hume’s 'Abject Failure' Vindicated"

[First published in Dec. 2018] William L. Vanderburgh defended Hume against John Earman in a very thorough article published in 2005 in Hume Studies, titled, "Of Miracles and Evidential Probability: Hume’s 'Abject Failure' Vindicated." [You can read the PDF right here.] Go read it, now! In it Vanderburgh shows David Hume probably knew of Bayes Theorem and never mentioned it for good reasons. 

I'm including a few of the important highlights below. I consider it an important contribution on Hume, Earman, and Bayes Theroem.

David Hume “Of Miracles” and Religions (#97-100) with Notes by John W. Loftus

David Hume: “A miracle may be accurately defined as a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.”
--------
Hume’s target was the Christian religion with its miracles. He argued against the probability of human testimony on behalf of miracles focusing on the Christian religion with its miracle claims. The root word “relig” with its endings (-ion –ions -ious –ionist) occurs twenty times in this chapter].

Below are a few paragraphs from the end of Hume's chapter (#97-100) with notes.

Don McIntosh Responds: "Reaffirming Belief in Miracles: A Brief Rebuttal to Loftus"

From the title it's clear I didn't convince Don. Maybe I should have used Bayes Theorem? It should be up at "The Secular Web" by next week. He started with these kind words though:

It’s an honor and pleasure to be interacting with John Loftus again, this time on the question of miracles. A well known and widely published atheist philosopher, counter-apologist, and critic of Christianity (and miracle claims in particular), Loftus has answered my 2025 article defending the rationality of belief in miracles and concluded that my arguments are inadequate to justify such a belief. In the process Loftus has managed to strike a friendly and respectful tone even while hitting back with replies that are insightful, vigorous, brutally honest and rhetorically formidable. That’s just how it should be, I think, and I will do my best to answer in kind.

His initial defense of miracles can be seen here: LINK

My one and only rebuttal can be seen here: LINK.

One Thing More: We Don't Need No Bayes Theorem!

Here's a paper I published at The Secular Web on the virgin birth of God's Son, titled Hail Mary: Was Virgin Mary Truly the Mother of God’s Son? In it I present a good case against such a miracle. Readers can judge for themselves without having to follow the math of Bayes. In fact, MANY MORE readers can follow my paper since they don't need to follow the math, while those who want it, can do it. Mic Drop!

Bayes Theorem with Regard to Vincent Torley

I previously mentioned knowing only one Christian who utilized Bayes and calculated a lower probability for the resurrection of Jesus than before. He went from a 60% probability to 50% to 25% probability. He still believes because after all, it's faith. All other Christians who use Bayes end with their probabilities well into the probability zone, some as high as 95%!

That's what I see. All but one Christian who utilized Bayes comes away with a high probability that Jesus arose from the dead, or that Christianity is true, or that God exists. On the surface Bayes only helps believers confirm their faith. Bayes ought to help believers re-think their faith, but it does no such thing. Granted, not much can change the diehard believer. But my point is that there is something wrong with an allegedly helpful theorem that doesn't force more believers to change their minds [edit: or the minds of non-believers for that matter]. If using Bayes won't help them [edit: or us] why bother?

The Christian believer I mentioned is Vincent Torley. You can read his cogitations on the matter at The Skeptical Zone. Here's his conclusion:

Since my estimate of the total probability of the various Type A skeptical explanations is less than 50%, and since the posterior probability of the Resurrection is much greater than that of the various Type B explanations, belief in the Resurrection is rational, from my perspective.

Based on the evidence, I estimate that there’s about a 60-65% 55-60% chance that Jesus rose from the dead. That means I accept that there’s a 35-40% 45-50% chance that my Christian faith is wrong. [Notice his lowering edits?]

However, I can understand why someone might rate the probabilities of hypotheses 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) at 20% each, instead of 10%. For such a person, belief in the Resurrection would be irrational, since the total probability of the Type A skeptical hypotheses would exceed 50%.

Summing up: a strong case can be made for the reality of Jesus’ Resurrection. However, a responsible historian would not be justified in asserting that Jesus’ Resurrection is historically certain. As we’ve seen, such a conclusion depends, at the very least, on the claim that there is a significant likelihood that there exists a supernatural Being Who is capable of working miracles, which is something the historian cannot prove. In addition, estimates of the probabilities of rival hypotheses will vary from person to person, and there seems to be no way of deciding whose estimate is the most rational one.

Later, after reading through Michael Alter's book, Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry, Torley came to calculate the probability of the resurrection of Jesus to be 20-25%. LINK But here is the rub that doesn't feel too good. Torley was not prompted to change his mind due to any Bayesian analysis since Alter doesn't use it! Alter merely hammered home a comprehensive evidential case! Checkmate Bayesians!