Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 12-15-2011, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

In general, figuring out what is meant by a sentence like 'Paul did not exist'--that is, any sentence of the form 'X did not exist'--is a difficult and complex question, as even a brief examination of the extensive scholarly literature on the subject discloses. That is why it is so often clearer and better to use a different form of expression.

Your post is BS.

The claim or sentence 'Paul did NOT exist" is NOT complex at all and is no different to a sentence or claim that 'Romulus did NOT exist', 'Robin Hood did NOT exist' and 'King Arthur did NOT exist'.

Even a brief examination of the extensive scholarly literature on the subject discloses that analysing the meaning of any sentence of that form is a difficult and complex question, although I understand that finding out what anybody else thinks (whether they're scholars or not) is not high on your list of priorities.

I EXAMINE the written statements of ANTIQUITY.

I EXAMINE EVIDENCE of ANTIQUITY NOT OPINION.

Evidence from Antiquity is PRIORITY.

The evidence in writings attributed to Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, the authors of the Short Ending gMark, the NT Canon, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, Aristides, Ephraim the Syrian, Arnobius and Apologetic authors support the non-existence of Jesus and Paul.

It is NOT complex at all to develop hypotheses that Jesus and Paul did NOT exist as stated in the NT Canon based on the EXTANT data.

You can say whatever you like. That's easy. Explaining what you mean by what you say is the hard part--too hard for you, it seems.

J-D · 12-15-2011, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

In general, figuring out what is meant by a sentence like 'Paul did not exist'--that is, any sentence of the form 'X did not exist'--is a difficult and complex question, as even a brief examination of the extensive scholarly literature on the subject discloses. That is why it is so often clearer and better to use a different form of expression.

Your post is BS.

The claim or sentence 'Paul did NOT exist" is NOT complex at all and is no different to a sentence or claim that 'Romulus did NOT exist', 'Robin Hood did NOT exist' and 'King Arthur did NOT exist'.

To be specific it is BS with respect to the field of history explicit in the OP, and since I have already cited a number of contemporary scholars in this field who use precisely the same form of expression.

Possibly they share your ignorance of the complexities they are glossing over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Even a brief examination of the extensive scholarly literature on the subject discloses that analysing the meaning of any sentence of that form is a difficult and complex question

I have produced at least three citations from the relevant field. Please provide one or two citations from the literature in the field of history to substantiate your claim.

I am discussing the meaning of words, a topic relevant to any discussion using words. I can see that you are not interested in learning to understand more about the meaning of words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

.... although I understand that finding out what anybody else thinks (whether they're scholars or not) is not high on your list of priorities.

According to you all the scholars are wrong.

They may be, but you have yet to establish the claim.

I did not make that claim. You are (characteristically) misrepresenting my position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The expressions are in the background knowledge of the field, which is not philosophy but history, and I have cited use of the specific expressions at the [HISTORICAL] hypothesis level.

The questions still stand.

Chili · 12-15-2011, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Yes and here than Paul still exists as the cloak of faith pronouncing the Ex Cathedra voice of Peter. Kind of like a happy trinity as you cannot proclaim heaven on earth and not be in charge of destiny.

So she went into the garden to cut a cabbage leaf to make an apple pie; and a great she-bear coming up the street popped its head into the shop. What! no soap? So he died; and she, very imprudently, married the barber; and there were present the Picninnies, and the Joblilies, and the Garyulies, and the grand Panjandrum himself, with the little round button on top; and they all fell to playing the game of catch-as-catch-can, till the gunpowder ran out of the heels of their boots.

So you do not understand what I just wrote?

mountainman · 12-15-2011, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Detering writes in The Falsified Paul

. . .the Pauline letters in their entirety are inauthentic. . .

If Paul was not the writer of the letters, then who was Paul, i.e., who was the person in whose name the letters were written? Was he a legend, a historical figure, or merely a phantom?

Detering continues to write primarily about the authenticity of the Pauline letters. He proposes an alternative thesis (or theory or hypothesis) to the mainstream interpretation that there are seven indisputably "authentic" letters of Paul, and that Paul can be identified as the author of those letters.

Pete continues to confuse an axiom or a postulate which is accepted at the beginning of an investigation and a hypothesis which is tested during the investigation. If he would just make this distinction, I think that most of the confusion in this thread would be cleared up.

The schematic distinguishes various sorts of hypotheses: those associated with evidence items and others I have labelled general hypotheses (which include statements such as Carrier's "Twelve Axioms". The diagram describes an INTERATIVE PROCESS where all forms hypotheses are tested and compared according to a theory that generates conclusions.

Quote:

There may in fact be scholars who also make this confusion, or who do not write clearly enough to be sure that no one else makes this confusion.

Besides confusion of the evidence with hypotheses about the evidence (which we appear to have fundamentally disagreed upon), I think that is another one of Carrier's points in using Bayes. The use of the Bayesian approach forces all parties to make the attempt at evaluating not just their own hypotheses and theoretical conclusions, but also those of other parties. This requirement forces everyone to become aware of how their own theories vary from others at the level of the hypotheses each party is using at the time.

Sooner or later this examination reveals the simplest forms and expressions of historical hypotheses as types of lowest common antithetical denominators that are effectively shared or excluded to some degree as shared or excluded hypotheses between different groups within all the parties.

SUMMARY

"Jesus existed in history" and "Jesus didn't exist in history" represent two fundamental historical hypotheses. One or the other of these hypotheses is used by all theories in the field of history. (Ditto for Paul). If the one or the other hypothesis is not used exlicitly, then it will be shown to have been used implicitly. Some treatments and theories do examine both sides (both hypotheses) and compare the evidence and conclusions.

The above statement can be shown false if it can be shown that any specific theory in history manages to avoid using one of these hypotheses. If so, I'd like an example. In all example hypotheses about Jesus (and Paul) that I have seen to date, one or other of these two antithetical hypotheses are either explicit or implied by the formulation of the hypothesis as furnished.

J-D · 12-15-2011, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Yes and here than Paul still exists as the cloak of faith pronouncing the Ex Cathedra voice of Peter. Kind of like a happy trinity as you cannot proclaim heaven on earth and not be in charge of destiny.

So she went into the garden to cut a cabbage leaf to make an apple pie; and a great she-bear coming up the street popped its head into the shop. What! no soap? So he died; and she, very imprudently, married the barber; and there were present the Picninnies, and the Joblilies, and the Garyulies, and the grand Panjandrum himself, with the little round button on top; and they all fell to playing the game of catch-as-catch-can, till the gunpowder ran out of the heels of their boots.

So you do not understand what I just wrote?

Or anything you write. Ever.

aa5874 · 12-15-2011, 08:28 PM

I found some very interesting information about "Statistical hypothesis Testing"

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statist...thesis_testing

Quote:

A statistical hypothesis test is a method of making decisions using data, whether from a controlled experiment or an observational study (not controlled). .........

Example 1 – Courtroom trial

A statistical test procedure is comparable to a criminal trial; a defendant is considered not guilty as long as his or her guilt is not proven. The prosecutor tries to prove the guilt of the defendant. Only when there is enough charging evidence the defendant is convicted.

In the start of the procedure, there are two hypotheses H0: "the defendant is not guilty", and H1: "the defendant is guilty".

The first one is called null hypothesis, and is for the time being accepted.

The second one is called alternative (hypothesis). It is the hypothesis one tries to prove.

The hypothesis of innocence is only rejected when an error is very unlikely, because one doesn't want to convict an innocent defendant.

Such an error is called error of the first kind (i.e. the conviction of an innocent person), and the occurrence of this error is controlled to be rare. As a consequence of this asymmetric behaviour, the error of the second kind (acquitting a person who committed the crime), is often rather large............

If one argues that Jesus of the NT was human then H0, the Null hypothesis, is description of Jesus in the NT as the Son of the Holy Ghost, God and the Creator and H1, the Alternative hypothesis, is that Jesus of the NT was human.

H1, the Alternative hypothesis, that Jesus of the NT was human, is the hypothesis that must be proven.

Once there is NO evidence, NO data, to support the Alternative Hypothesis--Jesus of the NT was human--then it can be REJECTED and the NULL hypothesis, Jesus was Myth (non-human) is accepted.

J-D · 12-15-2011, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Detering writes in The Falsified Paul

. . .the Pauline letters in their entirety are inauthentic. . .

If Paul was not the writer of the letters, then who was Paul, i.e., who was the person in whose name the letters were written? Was he a legend, a historical figure, or merely a phantom?

Detering continues to write primarily about the authenticity of the Pauline letters. He proposes an alternative thesis (or theory or hypothesis) to the mainstream interpretation that there are seven indisputably "authentic" letters of Paul, and that Paul can be identified as the author of those letters.

Pete continues to confuse an axiom or a postulate which is accepted at the beginning of an investigation and a hypothesis which is tested during the investigation. If he would just make this distinction, I think that most of the confusion in this thread would be cleared up.

The schematic distinguishes various sorts of hypotheses: those associated with evidence items and others I have labelled general hypotheses (which include statements such as Carrier's "Twelve Axioms". The diagram describes an INTERATIVE PROCESS where all forms hypotheses are tested and compared according to a theory that generates conclusions.

Quote:

There may in fact be scholars who also make this confusion, or who do not write clearly enough to be sure that no one else makes this confusion.

Besides confusion of the evidence with hypotheses about the evidence (which we appear to have fundamentally disagreed upon), I think that is another one of Carrier's points in using Bayes. The use of the Bayesian approach forces all parties to make the attempt at evaluating not just their own hypotheses and theoretical conclusions, but also those of other parties. This requirement forces everyone to become aware of how their own theories vary from others at the level of the hypotheses each party is using at the time.

Sooner or later this examination reveals the simplest forms and expressions of historical hypotheses as types of lowest common antithetical denominators that are effectively shared or excluded to some degree as shared or excluded hypotheses between different groups within all the parties.

SUMMARY

"Jesus existed in history" and "Jesus didn't exist in history" represent two fundamental historical hypotheses. One or the other of these hypotheses is used by all theories in the field of history. (Ditto for Paul). If the one or the other hypothesis is not used exlicitly, then it will be shown to have been used implicitly. Some treatments and theories do examine both sides (both hypotheses) and compare the evidence and conclusions.

The above statement can be shown false if it can be shown that any specific theory in history manages to avoid using one of these hypotheses. If so, I'd like an example. In all example hypotheses about Jesus (and Paul) that I have seen to date, one or other of these two antithetical hypotheses are either explicit or implied by the formulation of the hypothesis as furnished.

You have said all this before. You have made no response to any of the objections to it that other posters have made. Repetition does not improve the merits of your case.

J-D · 12-15-2011, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I found some very interesting information about "Statistical hypothesis Testing"

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statist...thesis_testing

Quote:

A statistical hypothesis test is a method of making decisions using data, whether from a controlled experiment or an observational study (not controlled). .........

Example 1 – Courtroom trial

A statistical test procedure is comparable to a criminal trial; a defendant is considered not guilty as long as his or her guilt is not proven. The prosecutor tries to prove the guilt of the defendant. Only when there is enough charging evidence the defendant is convicted.

In the start of the procedure, there are two hypotheses H0: "the defendant is not guilty", and H1: "the defendant is guilty".

The first one is called null hypothesis, and is for the time being accepted.

The second one is called alternative (hypothesis). It is the hypothesis one tries to prove.

The hypothesis of innocence is only rejected when an error is very unlikely, because one doesn't want to convict an innocent defendant.

Such an error is called error of the first kind (i.e. the conviction of an innocent person), and the occurrence of this error is controlled to be rare. As a consequence of this asymmetric behaviour, the error of the second kind (acquitting a person who committed the crime), is often rather large............

If one argues that Jesus of the NT was human then H0, the Null hypothesis, is description of Jesus in the NT as the Son of the Holy Ghost, God and the Creator and H1, the Alternative hypothesis, is that Jesus of the NT was human.

H1, the Alternative hypothesis, that Jesus of the NT was human, is the hypothesis that must be proven.

Once there is NO evidence, NO data, to support the Alternative Hypothesis--Jesus of the NT was human--then it can be REJECTED and the NULL hypothesis, Jesus was Myth (non-human) is accepted.

From the source you cite:

Quote:

In the statistical literature, statistical hypothesis testing plays a fundamental role.[6] The usual line of reasoning is as follows:

1. We start with a research hypothesis of which the truth is unknown.
2. The first step is to state the relevant null and alternative hypotheses. This is important as mis-stating the hypotheses will muddy the rest of the process.

It goes on, but as you've already gone wrong at this step in the process, there's no need to pursue the matter further.

aa5874 · 12-15-2011, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

...It goes on, but as you've already gone wrong at this step in the process, there's no need to pursue the matter further.

What!!! You have already admitted that you are NOT perfect in clarity of expression so it is a COMPLETE UTTER WASTE of time for you to try to tell me anything about "hypothesis".

You deal with your own self-confessed problem.

Now, the Courtroom Trial is an Example of Statistical Hypothesis Testing.

We have a NULL hypothesis--the claim of being NOT guilty.

In a courtroom trial the DEFENDANT does NOT have to SAY anything at the trial or produce any evidence or witnesses.

The NULL hypothesis is that the DEFENDANT is innocent.

The Alternative hypothesis that the Defendant is guilty and MUST be proven with EVIDENCE or by witnesses.

Once the Alternative hypothesis FAILS due to Lack of evidence or witnesses then the NULL hypothesis is accepted.

We have the NT Canon with a character called Jesus who was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost, that was God and the Creator of heaven and earth. In the same Canon, he WALKED on the sea, Transfigured, Resurrected on the Third day and Ascended to heaven in a Cloud.

Those who claim Jesus of the NT was human are ARGUING Against the NT Canon and have provided an ALTERNATIVE hypothesis.

The Alternative hypothesis is that Jesus was human, NOT fathered by a Ghost, and was NOT God the Creator.

The Alternative hypothesis LACKS evidence and witnesses.

The Alternative hypothesis that Jesus of the NT was human HAS UTTERLY FAILED.

The NULL hypothesis that Jesus of the NT was non-human, in effect, Mythology, is ACCEPTABLE and REASONABLE.

J-D · 12-15-2011, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

...It goes on, but as you've already gone wrong at this step in the process, there's no need to pursue the matter further.

What!!! You have already admitted that you are NOT perfect in clarity of expression so it is a COMPLETE UTTER WASTE of time for you to try to tell me anything about "hypothesis".

It is a complete utter waste of time for anybody to try to tell you anything about anything. But I wasn't trying to tell you anything.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.