Probability about Jesus (Christ) existence on earth

[timhendrix]

Hi Bernard,

I don't think we are making a lot of progress here.
In order to get anywhere, we have to figure out which equations we are using and then we can check if they can actually be derived from probability theory. In my previous post I derived the relationship

P(Jesus existed) > 1 - P(s1 is iid AND s2 is iid AND s3 is iid)

which I think is your starting point but I am actually not sure that is the case. Could you perhaps clear that up?
If there is no derivation of your result (i.e. it is simply postulating an equation and plugging numbers into it) then I don't think it makes sense to say it is correct or not...

[Bernard Muller]

to timhendrix,

P(Jesus existed) > 1 - P(s1 is iid AND s2 is iid AND s3 is iid)

which I think is your starting point but I am actually not sure that is the case. Could you perhaps clear that up?
If there is no derivation of your result (i.e. it is simply postulating an equation and plugging numbers into it) then I don't think it makes sense to say it is correct or not...

No that was never my starting point. My starting point, about an equation for:

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.

is

... the answer is 1 - Probability(none of them prove the point) which is
1 - (1 - 0.20)^5
= 1 - 0.32768
= 0.67232

= 67%
See http://able2know.org/topic/352494-1

So for probabilities of 72% for 15 points:
1 - (1 - 0.72)^15
= 1 - 0.0000000050976554
= 1 = 100%

Cordially, Bernard

[timhendrix]

to timhendrix,

P(Jesus existed) > 1 - P(s1 is iid AND s2 is iid AND s3 is iid)

which I think is your starting point but I am actually not sure that is the case. Could you perhaps clear that up?
If there is no derivation of your result (i.e. it is simply postulating an equation and plugging numbers into it) then I don't think it makes sense to say it is correct or not...

No that was never my starting point. My starting point, about an equation for:

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.

is

... the answer is 1 - Probability(none of them prove the point) which is
1 - (1 - 0.20)^5
= 1 - 0.32768
= 0.67232

= 67%
See http://able2know.org/topic/352494-1

So for probabilities of 72% for 15 points:
1 - (1 - 0.72)^15
= 1 - 0.0000000050976554
= 1 = 100%

Cordially, Bernard

Okay I see. In this case you are computing:

P(At least one of s1, s2, ..., s15 is not iid)


And I agree that if you assume that they are iid (or not) INDEPENDENT of each other the formula holds. I did not know you were assuming they were independent. Keep in mind this assumption will likely be regarded as controversial by some.

[MrMacSon]

Can someone again clarify what iid refers to?

[MrMacSon]

• .. I did not know you were assuming they were independent ..this assumption will likely be regarded as controversial by some.

• Yep.

[Bernard Muller]

iid or IID stands for probability of Interpolation, Interpretation (against historicity) or Dependence (on gospels).

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

this assumption will likely be regarded as controversial by some

Can anyone show me how? For example, if Jesus Christ was not presented as from the seed of Abraham in Galatians, would that reduced the probability of Jesus Christ as from the seed of David?

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

this assumption will likely be regarded as controversial by some

Can anyone show me how?

Several of us have tried and tried. I am not sure why I am doing this, but one more attempt....

For example, if Jesus Christ was not presented as from the seed of Abraham in Galatians, would that reduced the probability of Jesus Christ as from the seed of David?

No, but that is not what independence means in this context. Independence means that our calculated probabilities do not change even when we know the outcome of one of them.

Example of independent events: two coin flips. What are the chances of getting heads on the second flip if we know that the first flip was heads? 50/50, because the coin does not have a memory. What are the chances of getting heads on the second flip if we know that the first flip was tails? 50/50, because (again) the coin does not have a memory. Knowing the outcome of the first flip does not change our estimate of the outcome of the second.

Example of interdependent events: drawing two colored tokens out of a bag, assuming the drawn tokens are not replaced. If we know that the bag started out with 3 red and 3 white tokens, what are the chances of our second draw being red? For the issue of independence, the crucial question is: does knowing the result of the first draw matter? The answer is that of course it does. If we know that the first draw was white, this will leave only 2 white tokens and 3 red tokens in the bag, making the chances of drawing red the second time three out of five. If we know that the first draw was red, now the chances of drawing red the second time is only two out of five. The key here is that knowing the outcome of the first draw necessarily affects our estimates of the odds for the second draw.

This is why everybody on this thread (myself included) except for you seems to regard your list of events as interdependent, not independent. We would all change our estimate of the odds on some of those events if we already knew the outcome of at least one of the other events. The example I gave was Jesus as the descendant of Jesse and Jesus as the descendant of David. On their own, without us considering the other statement, these two statements might best be given similar chances of Paul referring to a real human being: let us say 80% for the sake of argument. But just because we can consider them separately does not make them independent events. (Just because we can does not mean that we should.) In this case, all of us on this thread, except apparently for you, would lower our estimate of the value of the Jesse statement if it were proven to us that Paul intended the David statement to be purely metaphorical or spiritual, and not literal. In order to tell whether the events are independent or not, we have to imagine what would change, if anything, if we knew the outcome of one of them (if we knew the "truth" about one of them, "what really happened").

So, Bernard, when you claim that the Jesse statement and the David statement are independent of one another, you are telling us that it does not matter what Paul meant by one statement when we evaluate the odds surrounding the other statement. You are telling us that, even if you became fully convinced that Paul was thinking of Jesus as a mythical being derived from a heavenly sperm bank or whatever when he described Jesus as the "descendant of David", you would still give the "descendant of Jesse" statement an 80% chance of indicating that Paul was thinking in this case of a real, historical human being. You would not drop the odds on the Jesse statement even a fraction, even if you were now admitting that Richard Carrier was right about Paul's David statement. Think about that; really think about it. We are assuming (only for the sake of determining whether or not these statements are independent) that Paul was a mythicist when he wrote that Jesus was the descendant of David, and you still think that there is an 80% chance that Paul was an historicist when he wrote that Jesus was a descendant of Jesse! But this, to the rest of us, is absurd. It would be illogical the other way around, too: if we knew for certain that Paul was thinking of a real human being when he wrote about the descendant of David, then surely 80% is now too low for him thinking of a real human being when he wrote about the descendant of Jesse. The point is that knowing what Paul was thinking in one case would change our estimate of the odds for the other cases, just like knowing that the first drawn token was red affects our estimate of the odds for the second draw.

That is why we do not consider Paul's statements to be independent of one another. We all surmise, except for you, that Paul was probably not both a mythicist and an historicist at the same time; he probably did not randomly flip back and forth between those two positions (like a coin flipping back and forth between heads and tails on successive tosses) as he composed his epistles. If he was thinking of a real human when he wrote one statement, he was probably also thinking of a real human when he wrote the other statement; conversely, if he was thinking of angelic being spawned by celestial sperm in one statement, he was probably thinking of that same kind of being in the other statement. Therefore the statements are not independent; they are interdependent.

As Peter said, this does not mean that all is lost for your approach:

I'm confident you could reach a figure of 99% or higher with the multiplication rule and without trampling over probability theory. But you seem to think I'm attacking your conclusion, instead of helping with an error of method, so you don't seem to see that either.

It just means you have to be more diplomatic with the equations, not treating obviously interdependent events as independent.

Sure hope this helps. I think we are all running out of ways to explain this to you.

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

But just because we can consider them separately does not make them independent events. (Just because we can does not mean that we should.) In this case, all of us on this thread, except apparently for you, would lower our estimate of the value of the Jesse statement if it were proven to us that Paul intended the David statement to be purely metaphorical or spiritual, and not literal. In order to tell whether the events are independent or not, we have to imagine what would change, if anything, if we knew the outcome of one of them (if we knew the "truth" about one of them, "what really happened").

The probability of "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;" (Ro 1:3) as being "purely metaphorical or spiritual" is very very small. Why assume "descendant of Jesse" is dependent of Ro 1:3 because of a small possibility, more so in view there are many other statements in the Pauline epistles (including 2 more in Romans) implying Jesus was an earthly human? And even if that little possibility is taken in account, that would not change much the 80% probability to be true I gave for "descendant of Jesse". Actually the remaining 20% is big enough to incorporate that small chance of dependence.
Please note I gave 70% probability for "descendant of David" mostly due to the fact it could be part of an interpolation, as proposed by some.

About Carrier statement about the sperm bank of God in heaven from which a sperm from David would, without a real woman, generate a human Jesus, are you really thinking that could be what Paul had in mind? really?
http://historical-jesus.info/70.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

But just because we can consider them separately does not make them independent events. (Just because we can does not mean that we should.) In this case, all of us on this thread, except apparently for you, would lower our estimate of the value of the Jesse statement if it were proven to us that Paul intended the David statement to be purely metaphorical or spiritual, and not literal. In order to tell whether the events are independent or not, we have to imagine what would change, if anything, if we knew the outcome of one of them (if we knew the "truth" about one of them, "what really happened").

The probability of "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;" (Ro 1:3) as being "purely metaphorical or spiritual" is very very small. Why assume "descendant of Jesse" is dependent of Ro 1:3 because of a small possibility, more so in view there are many other statements in the Pauline epistles (including 2 more in Romans) implying Jesus was an earthly human?

One statement is not dependent on the other in the sense that Paul had to write one first. That is not what independence means here. Independence means that, if Paul was thinking of a real human in one statement, then he was probably thinking of a real human in the other. That is, both statements probably imply the same thing for Paul. When you, Bernard, suggest that these statements are independent when it comes to the probabilities, you are suggesting that Paul may have easily gone back and forth on the matter, being a mythicist in one chapter and an historicist in another. Is that what you really think? I suspect you do not understand the concept of independence of events, rather than that you really, truly think that Paul could have changed his mind in a fashion as random as a coin flip.

And even if that little possibility is taken in account, that would not change much the 80% probability to be true I gave for "descendant of Jesse". Actually the remaining 20% is big enough to incorporate that small chance of dependence.

I do not care here what the numbers are. Honestly. All that matters here (for the time being) is whether you understand what independence is. Do you?

Please note I gave 70% probability for "descendant of David" mostly due to the fact it could be part of an interpolation, as proposed by some.

That is fine, and I do not care.

About Carrier statement about the sperm bank of God in heaven from which a sperm from David would, without a real woman, generate a human Jesus, are you really thinking that could be what Paul had in mind? really?

Are you serious, Bernard? Are you humanly incapable somehow of thinking in terms of hypotheticals? Tell me truly, and stop this stupid posturing. You know full well that I do not follow Carrier here; I have told you before explicitly that I think those passages demonstrate that Paul was thinking of an historical man (if they are not interpolations, of course). Perhaps you consider me to be as unthinking as your Paul is, who writes his opinions on the historical Jesus randomly, now a mythicist but then an historicist a few minutes later. So please waste no more time on this nonsense. Please grasp the concepts of probability before you start hammering away at me. You are better than this, Bernard.

Do you understand the concept that all these people have been trying to convey to you now, or do you not? Do you see how "descendant of Jesse" and "descendant of David" are probably not, in terms of how to use the equations, independent statements?