Page 9 of 26
Re: Probability about Jesus (Christ) existence on earth
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2016 7:00 pm
by Peter Kirby
Bernard Muller wrote:to Peter,
If events A and B come from the same sample space, the probability that both A and B occur is equal to the probability the event A occurs times the probability that B occurs, given that A has occurred.
P(A ∩ B) = P(A) P(B|A)
For example, "descendant of Jesse" occurs towards the end of Romans. But I do not see any dependence with "descendant of David" at the beginning of the same epistle. That is, if "descendant of David" was a latter interpolation (made with the benefit of knowing about the gospels), that would not prevent "descendant of Jesse" to occur in the epistle as written by Paul.
And the opposite ("descendant of Jesse" an interpolation, ""descendant of David" not one), that would not prevent "descendant of David" to occur in the epistle as written by Paul.
Cordially, Bernard
You say that it "would not prevent." Sure.
But you are also saying (more strongly) that it is irrelevant, that it doesn't matter, and that the information doesn't help / does not impact the estimate of the probability of considering other things to be interpolated also.
You can say that... but that doesn't mean it's very reasonable.
Re: Probability about Jesus (Christ) existence on earth
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2016 7:01 pm
by Peter Kirby
outhouse wrote:There is no placing mathematical interpretations to plausibility.
Carrier failed and that should have been a lesson to all. Sad really.
Yeah, essentially (re: made-up numbers). Especially when people struggle with the basic concepts involved with probability. It's a mess.
You can do it, but it, at best, is a way of doing bookkeeping regarding your opinions, if the numbers are just made up. At worst, you get things like the OP.
Re: Probability about Jesus (Christ) existence on earth
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2016 7:03 pm
by Peter Kirby
Bernard Muller wrote:theoretical thinking
You'd need to start with defining all your terminology, since you aren't using (in that post) any theory with which I am familiar already. You are free to try to do so, but I think you'd be in a stronger position if you had a better understanding of existing probability theory.
The people who invented non-Euclidean geometry, definitely knew Euclid. Einstein certainly understood Newtonian physics.
Re: Probability about Jesus (Christ) existence on earth
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2016 7:10 pm
by Peter Kirby
Bernard Muller wrote:Let's say we give 50% probability that the following shows that Jesus called Christ existed as a man on earth:
Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
A: Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't mean it is one.
We can make up numbers and assign them however we want, but the important question is the truth of things. And you certainly fail at this approach when you don't even understand what the numbers in question are supposed to mean, because you don't understand the concepts involved.
Re: Probability about Jesus (Christ) existence on earth
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2016 7:30 pm
by Peter Kirby
See, this shows a lack of understanding:
Apparently, even if all of the above are definitely wrong, somehow this still has an 80% chance of having completely true premises:
Bernard Muller wrote:9) 80% "the one man Jesus Christ" (Ro 5:15)
And thus having the "80%" of showing what is desired ("Jesus existed") where the previous eight had failed.
Please take a break and learn the concepts being used when you're talking about probability like this.
Re: Probability about Jesus (Christ) existence on earth
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2016 7:31 pm
by Bernard Muller
Peter Kirby wrote:Bernard Muller wrote:to Peter,
If events A and B come from the same sample space, the probability that both A and B occur is equal to the probability the event A occurs times the probability that B occurs, given that A has occurred.
P(A ∩ B) = P(A) P(B|A)
For example, "descendant of Jesse" occurs towards the end of Romans. But I do not see any dependence with "descendant of David" at the beginning of the same epistle. That is, if "descendant of David" was a latter interpolation (made with the benefit of knowing about the gospels), that would not prevent "descendant of Jesse" to occur in the epistle as written by Paul.
And the opposite ("descendant of Jesse" an interpolation, ""descendant of David" not one), that would not prevent "descendant of David" to occur in the epistle as written by Paul.
Cordially, Bernard
You say that it "would not prevent." Sure.
But you are also saying (more strongly) that it is irrelevant, that it doesn't matter, and that the information doesn't help / does not impact the estimate of the probability of considering other things to be interpolated also.
You can say that... but that doesn't mean it's very reasonable.
And why would that be not very reasonable? It is very reasonable to me but certainly not your conditional probability equation, which is not applicable in that case.
Cordially, Bernard
Re: Probability about Jesus (Christ) existence on earth
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2016 7:33 pm
by Peter Kirby
Bernard Muller wrote:You say that it "would not prevent." Sure.
But you are also saying (more strongly) that it is irrelevant, that it doesn't matter, and that the information doesn't help / does not impact the estimate of the probability of considering other things to be interpolated also.
You can say that... but that doesn't mean it's very reasonable.
And why would that be not very reasonable? It is very reasonable to me but certainly not your conditional probability equation, which is not applicable in that case.
The equation is always applicable.
Bernard Muller wrote: And why would that be not very reasonable?
Think about what happens when you already have N known interpolations. For example, 6 known interpolations. All of them regarding things like son of Abraham, son of Jesse, whatever interpolation that supposedly shows a belief in a HJ. Doesn't affect your estimate of the 7th, a comment of the same type, which similarly supposedly shows a belief in a HJ?
Well, that's unreasonable. Interpolations are not done by scribes by coin flip.
Re: Probability about Jesus (Christ) existence on earth
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2016 7:39 pm
by Peter Kirby
At this point, I can't see why this concept can possibly be this hard to understand.
Re: Probability about Jesus (Christ) existence on earth
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2016 8:27 pm
by Bernard Muller
Peter Kirby wrote:See, this shows a lack of understanding:
Apparently, even if all of the above are definitely wrong, somehow this still has an 80% chance of having completely true premises:
Bernard Muller wrote:9) 80% "the one man Jesus Christ" (Ro 5:15)
And thus having the "80%" of showing what is desired ("Jesus existed") where the previous eight had failed.
Please take a break and learn the concepts being used when you're talking about probability like this.
If all of the above are definitely wrong, then each of my points 1 to 8 would need a 0% probability to be true. But according to my rating of probabilities, that's very unlikely to happen; actually, most are likely to be true.
Cordially, Bernard
Re: Probability about Jesus (Christ) existence on earth
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2016 8:40 pm
by Peter Kirby
Bernard Muller wrote:Peter Kirby wrote:See, this shows a lack of understanding:
Apparently, even if all of the above are definitely wrong, somehow this still has an 80% chance of having completely true premises:
Bernard Muller wrote:9) 80% "the one man Jesus Christ" (Ro 5:15)
And thus having the "80%" of showing what is desired ("Jesus existed") where the previous eight had failed.
Please take a break and learn the concepts being used when you're talking about probability like this.
If all of the above are definitely wrong, then each of my points 1 to 8 would need a 0% probability to be true. But according to my rating of probabilities, that's very unlikely to happen; actually, most are likely to be true.
This comment shows that a lack of understanding persists.