Probability about Jesus (Christ) existence on earth

[Peter Kirby]

to Peter,

This is a really, really, really bad way to absorb information about mathematical probability.

There's too much bias and ego involved. It's like trying to learn to count while you're adding up your daddy's infidelities or your own personal mistakes. It's not a cool way to learn the subject, and you'll get a lot further considering more innocuous examples.

Learn the math first.

But I learned this math from you, and also confirmed by two fellows at http://able2know.org/topic/352494-1

From a previous post of yours:

And consider how this might be readjusted under the assumption that these probabilities are not independent. (The assumption of independence should not be made here.)

Can this assumption that these probabilities are not independent be evidenced? and what would its probability?
If there is no (or little) evidence for support, then that probability would be just a very low possibility, and taken care by (and part of) the other side of my 50%.
Too many times, I saw assumption (at best weakly evidenced) thrown against strong historicist piece of evidence, with the expected result that piece of evidence should be made void, just like it did not exist.
Of course I do not agree with that.

Cordially, Bernard

What you learned is under the assumption of the independence of probabilities. This assumption is just as important as the assumptions regarding what the probabilities are supposed to be. It cannot be swept under the rug or pushed back onto someone else.

Since it is your argument, the burden of justifying the assumption of independence is entirely yours. Have fun with that.

You are going to get a very strange and warped view of the subject, mathematically, if your examples are pet projects to prove things about early Christianity. I hope that you try to investigate the subject thoroughly, independently, before trying to apply it.

I could possibly try to show you why the assumption is weird, but why should I? (a) That takes time. (b) It's your job. (c) You're biased, or you would have seen some of the problem already on your own (well, at least, if you thoroughly understood the concepts... which might be the real problem at this point). (d) Your main exposure to these concepts seems to be in a highly polemical context, so it's like arguing about radiometric dating with a young earth creationist. It's just uncomfortable all around.

[Bernard Muller]

to MrMacSon,

The math you are trying to apply is about predicting outcomes of random events.

You are applying it in the wrong situation.

This is what I asked them:

If I have 5 independent arguments which are deemed for each at 20% probability to prove the same point, what would be the resulting probability of the 5 arguments together to prove my point.

Reference: http://able2know.org/topic/352494-1

That's not about random events.

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

We really need to talk about the subject in a different forum, in a different context, if there's going to be productive learning and discussion.

The Jesus thing poisons the whole subject.

You can't build a rocket ship to the moon, before you understand the basics.

This argument is the equivalent of trying to build that rocket ship without understanding the basics.

[Peter Kirby]

FWIW, Carrier has the same problem.

[Peter Kirby]

Wikipedia has an image for the general way to compute the probability of the intersection (conjunction, "and") of two events.

Probability



The problem is that most people learn the special case in junior high. Most people never learn the general case and don't have any intuition for it.

[Bernard Muller]

to Peter,

What you learned is under the assumption of the independence of probabilities. This assumption is just as important as the assumptions regarding what the probabilities are supposed to be. It cannot be swept under the rug or pushed back onto someone else.

Since it is your argument, the burden of justifying the assumption of independence is entirely yours. Have fun with that.

So now, I have to justify my understanding against something which is just an assumption (and apparently unevidenced).
Why don't you try to put some evidence into your assumption (about why these probabilities would be dependent), so I have something to work on?
I guess that you may think the pieces of evidence I cited in my favor would have been all (or most) interpolated by one or several individuals at some time after the gospel were written. Is it what you call assumption of dependence of probabilities?

You are going to get a very strange and warped view of the subject, mathematically, if your examples are pet projects to prove things about early Christianity. I hope that you try to investigate the subject thoroughly, independently, before trying to apply it.

My examples are not pet projects but inside the Pauline epistles, 'Hebrews' and Tacitus & Josephus writings.
As far as investigating about early Christianity, I certainly did that a lot, and that's for everyone to see: http://historical-jesus.info/

I could possibly try to show you why the assumption is dumb, but why should I? (a) That takes time. (b) It's your job.

But you should try, because I do not see how your assumption can claim to have some evidenced justification.

(c) You're biased, or you would have seen some of the problem already on your own (well, at least, if you thoroughly understood the concepts... which might be the real problem at this point). (d) Your main exposure to these concepts seems to be in a highly polemical context, so it's like arguing about carbon dating with a young earth creationist. It's just uncomfortable all around.

Concepts? what concepts? I am compared with a young earth creationist? What's next?
Whatever ... these are not arguments in favor of your case but more rhetoric against me with no beef in it.

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

to Peter,

What you learned is under the assumption of the independence of probabilities. This assumption is just as important as the assumptions regarding what the probabilities are supposed to be. It cannot be swept under the rug or pushed back onto someone else.

Since it is your argument, the burden of justifying the assumption of independence is entirely yours. Have fun with that.

So now, I have to justify my understanding against something which is just an assumption (and apparently unevidenced).

Well, to quote the character we are always talking about:

Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they don't know what they are doing."

You may feel like you are right about something here, Bernard, but you don't know what you are doing.

[Ben C. Smith]

to Peter,

What you learned is under the assumption of the independence of probabilities. This assumption is just as important as the assumptions regarding what the probabilities are supposed to be. It cannot be swept under the rug or pushed back onto someone else.

Since it is your argument, the burden of justifying the assumption of independence is entirely yours. Have fun with that.

So now, I have to justify my understanding against something which is just an assumption (and apparently unevidenced).

For reference: [wiki]Independence (probability theory)[/wiki]:

In probability theory, two events are independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent if the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of the other.

[Peter Kirby]

Note: If assigning different probabilities for each point, the equation becomes: P = 1 - [(1-p1)*(1-p2)*...*(1-pN)]

To make the adjustment, p2 needs to be the conditional probability of event 2, assuming event 1 did not occur. And p3 needs to be the conditional probability of event 3, assuming events 1 and 2 did not occur. And so on.

I'd like to mention that I considered this to be a starting point, not a rebuttal.

It's entirely possible to make the kind of argument that you want to make, while trying to take into account conditional probability.

In fact, it's the only mathematically valid way to do so... (and assuming independence is not the only way to do so...)

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

In probability theory, two events are independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent if the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of the other.

I still do not see why any of my 9 points would be dependent on each others. Maybe somebody can explain that to me & us.
But Carrier in OHJ thinks otherwise for my points 1 to 4, because he entertained the idea that it was believed God had a sperm bank in heaven (but with hardly no evidence to support that) and made a fleshy Christ here from that sperm (but with no woman!). Therefore Christ would be also a descendant of Abraham, Israelites and Jesse from that sperm. So we would have dependence on my first four points.
But I put that in the category of far-fetched nonsense, with a very very small (unsignificant) probability.

Cordially, Bernard