patcleaver

What a phenomenal waste of time.
Most of the things you are disputing are ridiculous things that you could easily find out yourself using goggle. Just learn to read books and goggle.

Do you really think that I am going to waste my time doing research for you?

Why should I have to provide a cite for the population of Alexandria when you have not disputed the number that I used and its tangential to my argument and well known?

Is there a dispute about it?

stonewall1012

patlceaver: "The proponent of any positive proposition has the burden of proving that the proposition is likely true. The negative proposition is just a denial of the positive proposition and does not have to be proved."

Besides lacking any historian who would agree with you lets test out your theory on logic, which you obviously do not understand.

You assert the earth is round. I deny that it is round... I do not have to prove the assertion that it is not round all I must do is deny your assertion.

You assert that gravity works because of the mass of the planet. I deny that gravity exists.

You assert that men have been into space and have seen the earth... I deny that this has happened.

You assert that we have photographs of the earth as round... I deny the photographs are authentic.

You claim everyother planet we can see with our eyes are round... I deny there are really any other planets at all.

Don't you think its reasonable to ask a person who would deny what we would consider "obvious evidence" for the earth being round to produce evidence? If you ask for proof than it is NOT the default position. If you knew anything about Descartes (who tried this assinine skepticism) you would know you can doubt ANYTHING.

2ndly I would ask you to post ANY historicians quote that as a matter of principle every documents veracity is doubted. I don't care who you quote, Taticus, Edward Gibbon, doesn't matter. Provide me ONE. the reason you cannont is because it's an assinine assumption.
finally I agree with Gibson, you changed the parameters of what you are "negating" are you doubting all documents authenticity or veracity? These are two very, very different things.

patcleaver

I do not doubt any reasonable evidence.
Your arguement ammounts to a claim that I have to believe fairy tails if I can not prove that they are false.
Your arguements are straw men and irrational claims.

Jeffrey Gibson

Yes. I'm learning that that is exactly what corresponding with you is.

Most of the things you are disputing are ridiculous things that you could easily find out yourself using goggle.

I see. So you work from a double standard. You demand that others provide evidence for the positive claims they make. But you absolve yourself from doing this when someone requests that you do what you ask of others, shifting the burden of proof to them.

Experience shows that what this means is that the burden shifter is trying to disguise the fact that he doesn't have any evidence for his claims.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

[QUOTE=patcleaver;5447899]

Yes it is. But so far, as others beside myself have noted, providing evidence and arguments that show that your positive propositions are likely to be "authentic" (:huh and true is exactly what you have not done.

Jeffrey

patcleaver

Why I think it is unlikely that Emperor Hadrian would have ever heard of the followers of Jesus of Nazareth in 135 CE.

In the entire Roman Empire of 70 million people, in 135 CE there were only about 10,000 followers of JON (Jesus of Nazareth). So if we assume that Alexandra had a typical population of JON followers and that the population of Alexandria was about 750,000 then there would have been 107 followers of Jesus of Nazareth in Alexandria in 135 CE.

Even if Alexandria was a hotbed of JON followers then there may have been several hundred. There were probably dozens (if not hundreds) of cults with larger numbers, and it is very unlikely that Emperor Hadrian would have ever heard of the followers of Jesus of Nazareth.

If Historia Augusta were reliable, it is very likely that the Christians that Emperor Hadrian was discussing were not followers of Jesus of Nazareth. The most likely alternative is that they were worshipers of Serapis.

patcleaver

[QUOTE=Jeffrey Gibson;5448483]You have not even said what you disagree with.

If there is something that I have said that you really disagree with then state your position and we can discuss it.

It would have been so easy to show that my figure of 150,000 for the population of Alexandria in 135 CE was too conservative, but you probably already knew that. Anyway, a population of 750,000 makes my argument even stronger.

Just saying prove-it, prove-it, prove-it to everything I say just sounds so ignorant and childish.

stonewall1012

Your assessement is not necessarly irrational, however it is based upon several assumptions which might be faulty. Starks assessment of 1,000 is it an accurate count or an estimate? Secondly, the assumption of 40% growth is just that an assumption. Who knows historically how fast (in actual countable numbers) the belief grew? The estimated roman Population as 60 million once again is not irrational but hardly proven fact.
However what is to say the growth was NOT proportional but developed in "spurts" like 100% growth for the first 20 years (meaning each convert converts 1) for 20 years and then drops to 40%growth. There is NO way to tell, it is conjecture.

There is nothing wrong with conjecture however, to make the assertion that Hadrian COULD NOT have been talking about Christians in the "forged" or "authentic" script based upon this conjecture is to make a logical conclusion based off of questionable "givens". It provides interesting statistics but it is most certainly NOT historical FACT that there were merely 107 christians in alexandria. True your making an argument... even a logical one however, the givens that we are required to make for this evidence to be truely rational are just too questionable for me to assume this is FACT. There is a difference between evidence and FACT

Jeffrey Gibson

[QUOTE=patcleaver;5448512]When did saying what one disagrees with vis a vis your positive propositions become a stipulation for your living up to your own dictum that "The proponent of any positive proposition has the burden of proving that the proposition is likely true"?

I though the point under discussion was whether you had any evidence to back up your claims, not whether anything you claimed was wrong. Why have you shifted things?

Perhaps. But what is certain is that you have shown that you did not know what you were talking about when you made your initial claim.


I'd be grateful if you could show me where I asked you to "prove" anything, let alone said "prove it, prove it, prove it".

All I've done so far as I can see is ask you to cite the evidence that you think supports your claims. I also asked you to name the primary source(s) you rely on for making the claims you have about Hadrian and Serapis and about there being a Serapis faction in Alexandria that worshiped a pagan deity named "christ"


May we expect to see your evidence and these sources anytime soon?

Jeffrey

stonewall1012

patcleaver: "If there is something that I have said that you really disagree with then state your position and we can discuss it."

I'm sorry Patcleaver but I'm going to have to agree with Jeff on this one... You stated earlier that the "burden of proof" lay upon someone making a positive assertion not upon some one denying it... so unless your willing you "recall" your earlier assertion that negativity is the "default" position... Mr. Gibson is not required to submit a single reason why he disbelieves your claim, you have simply not "convinced" him. According to your own rules of "logic".