your-god-is-too-small May. 2016 | Page 145

Now in Bayesian terms, rock solid evidence can overcome even absurdly low initial priors. Hence the saying popularized by Carl Sagan “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” The more extraordinary a claim, the lower the initial probability of the claim being true, and thus the greater the evidence required to overcome the low prior. However, if there is solid evidence for a specific revelation of god, the evidence will adjust the prior, increasing the probability of the belief being true. Notice the dilemma here for theists? The mounting scientific evidence explaining the origin of life and the universe, sans supernatural cause, combined with the complete lack of evidence for theism, pushes the probability for non belief much higher than the initial 50%. Some would even argue as high as 99.99%. On the other hand, this lack of evidence for any single theistic belief drives down their already low prior probability to pretty much impossible. The lack of evidence for theism is exactly what we would expect to find if there is NOT a god who is presently intimately involved with his creation. Again, if this involved god did exist, we would expect to find solid evidence around which the majority of beliefs would converge. The best this lack of evidence could support is a deistic view that a god or gods may have created everything and then went on vacation. Or if you want to believe all the miracles of the Bible actually happened and suddenly ceased just at the point we were able to verify miracle claims, we must conclude there was some sort of cosmic war or accident and god has become incapacitated or died. This might explain his extremely delayed return. Maybe he will recover. In summary, history establishes the undeniable fact that Christianity has become extremely divergent since we first undertook reading the Bible for ourselves. In addition to the classic twelve major world religions, the sheer number of modern revelations to choose between means we have almost no statistical chance of being right if we take Pascal’s wager. P a g e | 145