Just at the start of the debate, a small question as follow-up to my earlier poll about the estimated probability of the historicity of Jesus et al:

- Are you, as a result of the forthcoming debate, in principleprepared to change your estimate of the probability that Jesus was an historical person?

A simple Yes or No will do

My answer: Yes (because I really don't know too much about the issue, and I hope some of the blank spots in my knowledge will be filled in).

And you?

fG

By the way, a quick analysis of the previous poll shows that the average probability that Jesus is historical (out of 18 replies) is 72.4 with a standard deviation of 28.2. For Caesar and hercules the numbers are 97.8 +/- 2.9 and 15.1 +/- 19.3 respectively.

fG

Bede

Well, I'm going for a knock out in the fifth but I'd like to know if the three knock down rule applies.

B

Knowing little about the topic I am certainly prepared to change my thoughts on the histrocity of Jesus. Whilst the central issue in the debate is whether Jesus actually existed, I think even if it can be shown that it is rational to believe that Jesus did exist, the issue then becomes 'How much of the information about Jesus in the Bible and other sources are reliable'. This issue of course has serious implications for belief in God.

I am fully prepared to change my opinion on the historicity of Jesus thanks to this debate. It has always been my assumption that there was indeed a man at ground zero of the myths and fantastic tales... but I am always open to new philosophies and evidences. Of course, I am also fully prepared to not change my opinion, and strengthen what is now an assumption into a provisionally held belief.

But then, that's the joy of being a skeptic!

Its doubtful that I will change my view that the man Jesus existed. Doherty's case would have to be very powerful to do that. At best he could only lower the odds. If I think the odds that Jesus really existed are 80% to being with and his argument is fairly good, then I might modify the odds down to 70 - 75%. If his arguments are really good - perhaps down to 60 - 65%. If his arguments are great - perhaps as low as 50 - 55%.

FG: I'm just gonna nitpic a little here,
since I minored in Statistics....

All your poll says is that average of
all the opinions in the polls ranks
at 72.4%. That is not the same as the actual
probability that Jesus existed.

The numbers in the sample are purely
speculative, based on opinions ("everybody
as has one, nobody wants to hear them"),
and therefore extremely subjective.

It is of course impossible to ascertain
the actual probability of his existence.
There is no data that can be used conclusively
for this. If there were, this debate would
not be necessary IMHO. Everything is indirect
evidence.

Which brings me to anothe thought I had
(maybe a little off topic). Has anybody
realized that the odds are stacked against
the atheists in this whole thing?

From logic, we know that you cannot prove
that something didn't exist. You can only
prove that something does (did) exist. Therefore,
while the Christians can argue that something
does exist (God, Jesus, Miracles, etc), all
Atheists can argue is that the Christians
have not proven it.... which is why they
fall back on the whole faith thing. It's
almost a perfect con...

I'd certainly be prepared to change my mind. At the moment, with my limited knowledge of the issue, I'd say the historical Jesus was very probable, though not certain. Arbitrary number - 85%. I could see myself revising that up or down as I learn more.

Why must it be only one JC ?
It could be two !
Why ? One got killed at the cross & the other got the credit for the "resurrection".

Hey Kosh... give me a break! I too followed a stats course when at University - 25 years ago by now

I typed in a hurry - a lame excuse, but I certainly realise that it takes more than 18 votes to establish the probability of Jesus having existed

fG