Continuing the discussion from Are the Gospels Reliable?:
Undefined means that we can’t set the probability to zero without begging the question.
You (@Faizal_Ali) want to set the probability exactly at zero (a priori), because you do not believe God exists. You use this this zero probability to demonstrate that the Resurrection did not happen. This is “begging the question,” an elementary logical fallacy.
I am convinced (a posteri) that the Resurrection did happen, and this is why I believe God exists. My reasoning now that this fact is established proceeds forth from this starting point. Knowing now that God exists, the probability of the Resurrection is 1 for me, and this is rational because I know God exists. In once sense, this seems “begging the question” too, but not really. My reasoning to get probability of the Ressurection > 0.5 only required openness to the possibility that God existed.
The Resurrection is the epistemological hinge point by which we know that God does or does not exists. You have to compute it’s prior probability with openness to the possibility that God exists, or you are begging the question. If it is possible that God exists (even if it is low probability), then it is possilble the Resurrection happened, therefore your prior of 0 on the Resurrection is just a math error.
Unless of course you are perfectly fine with the epistemic closure of begging the question to ignore the evidence in front of you. That would remind me of flat earthers and scientific YECs (Young Earth Creationists and the Flat Earth Conspiracy), so feel free to take this path if you must. It would be entertaining.