I'm not even saying I wouldn't accept that Alexander was divine under the right circumstances, it is just objectively less probable if we go by the evidence. 1. All figures who claim to be divine are not assigned the same probability- we examine their life. 2. Christ has more corroborating sources. 3. Christ has more contemporary historians write about this claim.
There is more evidence that Alexander existed, but it's not really argued whether or not Christ existed. Both meet the sufficient criteria for existence.
Assuming they both existed we still have to establish whether they are mere mortals or divine. I am sure you would agree that the usual purpose of stories about miracles is to establish the religious authority of the particular figure who performs them or is associated with them, right?
Consider these 5 reasons for why we should doubt these miracle stories:
1) These stories are not really well attested for. "None is attested by sufficient number of men, of such unquestioned good sense, education, and learning, as to secure us against all delusion in themselves; of such undoubted integrity, as to place them beyond all suspicion of any design to deceive others; of such credit and reputation in the eyes of mankind, as to have a great deal to lose in case of their being detected in any falsehood; and at the same time attesting facts, performed in such a public manner, and in so celebrated a part of the world, as to render the detection unavoidable: All which circumstances are requisite to give us a full assurance in the testimony of men" - Hume.
2) The human mind has a positive tendency to believe in what is strange, marvellous and wonderful.
3) Miracle stories " are observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous nations. Where they are believed by civilised people these will be found to have received from ignorant and barbarous ancestors". - Hume
4)There are many miracle stories from many religions and their claims contradict and undermine one another. Any one miracle report, to be true, would require the falsity of the others. This is like having 20 witnesses in a courtroom all each of whom was denounced as a liar by the other 19.
5) People have an intense desire to believe in are religious object. And in a religious context credulity is often thought meritorious and critical caution is felt to be sinful. So from a handful of believers in communication with others around them we will observe the belief reinforce itself and develop into total conviction, and the believers will see this as a virtuous spiral.
These 5 points are of unequal force but taken together provide grounds for a high degree of initial caution and scepticism about every miracle claim.
Now we can move on to the miracle claims considering the 5 points above and see whether there is reason for us to believe them.
There are 3 possible cases.
A) The unlikelihood of the testimony being false (the person is mistaken or dishonest) is less than the intrinsic unlikelihood of the miracle's having occurred. In this case we must reject the miracle report.
B) The unlikelihoods are equal. In this case we suspend judgement, which means we cannot rationally accept the report.
C) The occurrence of the miracle is intrinsically less unlikely than the testimony's being false. In this case we are rational to accept the miracle.
For C) to be the case (to rationally accept the miracle) the falsity of the testimony has to be the more miraculous than the event related to us, i.e., the testimony being false must be more unlikely than the miracle having occurred.
But this can never be the case because we have strong inductive evidence that nature follows a set order and has never produced events which surpass its productive capacity. And we also have reasons (points 1 to 5) that increase the likelihood of testimony being false; human nature being such that it deceiving or deceived is more likely than that the laws of nature, the regularity we see, has been suspended.
Credit to David Hume.
