Toto

Then identify those "postulates."

mountainman

Doug is reluctant to repeat the items of evidence upon which his inference relies. See post # 43. I honestly dont recall which evidence Doug is relying upon for this inference. Perhaps you know or can recall?

My position is - whatever the items are - there will be hypotheses that have been made about that evidence item or items, and that Doug's inference is based on specific hypotheses about the evidence being true.

Toto

Here is Doug's post 43:

You talked about postulates. Doug does not talk about postulates.

Postulates are not evidence.

If you can't get your vocabulary straight, it is impossible to carry on a rational conversation.

The evidence that leads to an inference that Paul existed would be the Pauline letters. These letters were either written by Paul, or were written by someone else and attributed to Paul, meaning that Paul was a person that one would want to pretend to be. Either way, Paul probably existed.

This doesn't prove that Paul existed; for instance, Screwtape did not exist, except in the imagination of CS Lewis. But it is the sort of probabilistic evidence that is typically used.

I don't see any hidden postulates here.

aa5874

Your claim is WHOLLY erroneous.

Letters dated by Paleography to the mid 2nd-3rd century with the name Paul are NOT evidence that Paul probably existed in the 1st century Before the Fall of the Temple.

Without any corroboration from non-apologetic sources for Paul in the 1st century then it is the opposite, especially when Apologetic sources also cannot account for him.

Paul probably did NOT exist at all in any century and Before the Fall of the Temple and did NOT write a single letter Before the Fall of the Temple.

The persons who wrote the letters appear to be UNKNOWN or wrote in secrecy.

Examine Romans 16.22 Who is TERTIUS?

It is clear that without any external corroboration and with claims of forgery that one cannot assume that a person called PaUL wrote Epistles.

The physical evidence, P46, does NOT support you at all.

mountainman

These are all postulates.

(1a) These letters were either written by Paul, or
(1b) These letters were written by someone else and attributed to Paul,
(2) Paul was a person that one would want to pretend to be.
(3) Paul probably existed.

You will observe that I am not saying whether these are reasonable
or unreasonable postulates, I am simply pointinbg out that they are
a series of hypotheses made with respect to the evidence, which
may or may not be true.



Of course it doesn't.



You yourself have stated the implied (or hidden) postulates above 1, 2 and 3.
They are again:

(1a) These letters were either written by Paul, or
(1b) These letters were written by someone else and attributed to Paul,
(2) Paul was a person that one would want to pretend to be.
(3) Paul probably existed.


You may not wish to categorise (3) as a postulate,
but instead to infer (3) from 1a, 1b and 2.

In tbis case, the implicit postulates are:

(1a) These letters were either written by Paul, or
(1b) These letters were written by someone else and attributed to Paul,
(2) Paul was a person that one would want to pretend to be.

These may or may not be true. But for the sake of the inference "Paul was historical" one needs to assume their truth.

mountainman

As far as the OP goes, all parties are required to make postulates (hypotheses, assumptions) of some kind about the evidence. There is no guarantee that such posulates are true. All conclusion(s) must necessarily therefore be very hypothetical.

Toto

No.

You cannot divide 1a and 1b.

The evidence is that we have letters that claim to have been written by Paul. It is a logical statement (not a postulate) that they were either written by Paul or by someone writing as Paul.

My inference from that is that "Paul" probably existed - based either on the evidence that he wrote the letters, or that he was important enough for someone else to write under his name.

These are not postulates, and they are not hidden.

Doug Shaver

Kuhn was using the history of scientific theories to make a point about the theories themselves. Insofar as history is a science, his point applies.

aa5874

If what you say is true then my postulate, hypothesis, conclusion, theory, belief, inference or position is compatible with the abundance of AVAILABLE evidence.

Toto's inference is NOT compatible with the abundance of EVIDENCE that is available.

Letters with the name Paul alone CANNOT determine that Paul probably existed in the 1st century before the Fall of the Temple.

The ABUNDANCE of evidence tend to show that the Pauline writings are probably Chronologically bogus and that there was probably NO person known as Paul and probably NO Churches as found in the same Pauline writings.

mountainman

It's a compound statement for Christ's sake.



We agree that the foundationsal evidence items (in this case) are the so-called Pauline letters.



Totally disagree with this assessment. The statement that they were written by Paul is a specific assumption about the evidence.

The statement that they were written by someone writing as "Paul" is another very general assumption, which also seems to introduce the notion that "Paul" is a legitimate historical identity. This may or may not be the case. Putting these two statements together as a compound statement changes nothing.

For example here is another other equally valid statement: the Pauline Letters were not written by "Paul" and may be all forged.

If these statements concerning the evidence are then taken to be true for the sake of further argumentation (or inference) then with respect to the development of the argument they represent postulates. .




Your inference is based upon your stated postulates about the evidence. Other inferences are possible based upon other stated postulated about the evidence. The evidence itself is here being examined as separate from all possible assumptions (postulates) that can be drawn from this evidence.



I will continue to argue that these statements about the evidence are indeed postulates, that are assumed to be true for the sake of the theory generator, and that this fact appears to be hidden from you at the moment.