Rick Sumner

It is thoroughly scientific to weigh probabilities. And if you know a way that we can actually do that (rather than just pay lip service to it) I'd be delighted to see it. But probabilities, while better than "proof," still isn't an accurate term.

To arrive at a probability, you need an objective weight attached to the evidence and the outcomes. We don't have that. Consequently, we aren't weighing "probabilities," we're describing plausibilities.

I argue that some specific elements of Doherty's hypothesis are untenable, though I'm far more likely to attack a claim to certainty ("there can be no doubt," or "quite certainly" are a couple of his favorites).

But that his entire position is untenable? That isn't my criticism at all. I just think it's implausible.

No Robots

According to what criteria? How do you weigh plausibilities? Isn't that a scientific process?

Rick Sumner

It varies on what point he's making. But ultimately it comes down to what I consider a better explanation of the rise of Christianity.

It ultimately comes down to whim of the interpreter.

No.

aa5874

You have totally destroyed your position. Lights out.

You are only paying lip service.

No Robots

Yeah, well, again, sorry, Rick. I think that Spinoza has the right approach, and provides a game-ending assessment of the OT. Constantin Brunner, following Spinoza, does the same for the NT.

Zaphod

You really simply can not read for comprehension, can you? I most certainly do not conflate "proof" and "evidence", and my post uses "proof" only to reference a "proof source" and the "burden of proof".

Furthermore, scientists do not look for "proof", they look for evidence. You evidently don't understand science any more than plain English.

And I love this term "minimalist" that you apologists throw around as if it is an insult! I guess one man's "minimalism" is another man's caution. If only you used the same standard of caution when evaluating the mythicist position as you do for your carefree assertions about evidence for JC's historicity!:constern01:

And once again, because you seem incapable of grasping the point, my argument is not about the process of evaluating evidence, it is about asserting that the historicity of JC is the justifiable default position.

Zaphod

And that is exactly how I used the term, BTW.

Perhaps if you had taken the time to actually read what I wrote, instead of uncritically copy/pasting Chaucer's 180' wrong-headed screed as a proclamation of "truth" you would not come across as such a partisan.

ApostateAbe

I read what you wrote, thank you. I used the word, "proof," in a similar way myself, and I should know better. It is too often often understood to mean absolute certainty or scientifically-conclusive evidence.

Rick Sumner

I love the term "apologist" being thrown around as a thinly veiled insult.

Chaucer

And you still don't understand "evidence". The verse relating to James in Galatians constitutes evidence. You said flat-out that it isn't "evidence". That's absurd, and I have a feeling that deep down you know that it's absurd and that, on the contrary, it is indeed evidence.

Now, one can argue that it's iffy evidence or good evidence. But it is still evidence. If one says it's not evidence of any kind, then one is either living in a dream world, or in some grand mythicist inquisition by high myther priests of the future presiding over a mass book-burning that is intent on destroying all evidence, iffy, good and in-between. Every SECULAR scholar with a conscience can only hope that such a sick dream never becomes a reality.

Chaucer