Question

The passage questions why mundane events are not generally seen as evidence of God, despite their inherent improbability when specified. It challenges the notion that improbable events, such as winning a competition after praying, are considered evidence of God while mundane occurrences are not. The author explores the concept of severity requirements in statistical inference, emphasizing the need to rule out alternative explanations when establishing evidence. The passage suggests that the author finds the argument for God's existence based on improbable events lacking in specificity and fails to address competing explanations adequately. The author also notes the subjective nature of significance, highlighting that the perceived importance of an event influences its consideration as evidence. Various perspectives on the relationship between the mundane and the divine are presented, with one viewpoint linking surprise and neurochemical responses to the perception of miracles. The passage concludes with a call to define 'God' before investigating its existence, stressing the importance of clear definitions and reliable evidence. Overall, the text explores the complex interplay between improbability, significance, and the attribution of events to a divine entity. Why does the passage suggest that mundane events are not commonly seen as evidence of God?

a. The events lack inherent improbability.

b. The severity requirements in statistical inference are not met.

c. Neurochemical responses to surprise render miracles more convincing.

d. Competing explanations are adequately ruled out.

Answer 1

Mundane events are not commonly seen as evidence of God due to their lack of inherent improbability, failure to meet the severity requirements in statistical inference, and inability to address competing explanations adequately.

Step-by-step explanation:

The passage suggests that mundane events are not commonly seen as evidence of God because they lack inherent improbability, do not meet the severity requirements in statistical inference, do not address competing explanations adequately, and are not considered miracles as they do not violate the laws of nature.

The author emphasizes the need for clear and indisputable evidence to accept an event as a miracle, and explains that many alternative explanations can exist for mundane events.

Therefore, mundane events are not commonly seen as evidence of God.