The Jesus Myth Part III

[dastardly stem]

Answer whether Jesus is a pizza or pepperoni one? I answered that.

No. First one was:

Stem, true or false?

Given the contents of Mark, it is more probable that Jesus was a myth than that Jesus was a myth and not based on a historical figure?

It is more probable that Jesus was a myth, of course. I thought that was pretty clear.

[dastardly stem]

ETA: The preamble for the Linda problem has nothing to do with the logical principle the problem is based on. It is always true that the likelihood that something belongs to a subset cannot exceed the likelihood that that it belongs to the set

it very much matters. Consider someone named their food Jesus. THen suddenly your absurdity works. Given Mark though, the probability comes out equal on both. Jesus being a pizza or pepperoni pizza comes out as the same probability. Thus, the preamble matters quite a bit.

[dastardly stem]

This is the problem with your response. Simply repeating the same argument over and over and over without substantively responding to the issues that have been raised doesn't advance understanding at all.

I missed this earlier, Res Ipsa. I agree that's a big problem. I don't want to do it. I really, sincerely, don't know what to do when you have misunderstood, as demonstrated by the way you've characterized what I'm saying. To me this problem is not just one side, as you keep "harping on" . It's a communication between both. Once misunderstanding occurs and those who misunderstand aren't willing to hear the other, the misunderstanding seems to grow exponentially. That's too bad. This is an interesting topic. I found this all a very interesting exercise. I was completely surprised by the really weird responses, but it's kind of understandable when you consider the dilemma (and I'm sure my view on that, probably rankles a bit).

[Res Ipsa]

ETA: The preamble for the Linda problem has nothing to do with the logical principle the problem is based on. It is always true that the likelihood that something belongs to a subset cannot exceed the likelihood that that it belongs to the set

it very much matters. Consider someone named their food Jesus. THen suddenly your absurdity works. Given Mark though, the probability comes out equal on both. Jesus being a pizza or pepperoni pizza comes out as the same probability. Thus, the preamble matters quite a bit.

You absolutely do not understand what the Linda problem illustrates. The function of the preamble is to intentionally trick the brain into making a mistake. The logical principle it demonstrates is independent of the preamble. Nobody is arguing with you about the logical principle the Linda problem is intending to demonstrate. We're all arguing that it has nothing to do with the topic we've been discussing.

[Res Ipsa]

No. First one was:

It is more probable that Jesus was a myth, of course. I thought that was pretty clear.

Then what also should be clear is that the Linda problem has absolutely nothing to do with whether Jesus was a historical figure.

[dastardly stem]

it very much matters. Consider someone named their food Jesus. THen suddenly your absurdity works. Given Mark though, the probability comes out equal on both. Jesus being a pizza or pepperoni pizza comes out as the same probability. Thus, the preamble matters quite a bit.

You absolutely do not understand what the Linda problem illustrates. The function of the preamble is to intentionally trick the brain into making a mistake. The logical principle it demonstrates is independent of the preamble. Nobody is arguing with you about the logical principle the Linda problem is intending to demonstrate. We're all arguing that it has nothing to do with the topic we've been discussing.

Oh no I got that about the preamble. Why do you think I've missed that? Of course the mark story has misled many to think it's more likely Jesus is myth and a historical person rather than just myth. that's a big part of the point here and seems to be why no one outright acknowledged the obvious.

[dastardly stem]

It is more probable that Jesus was a myth, of course. I thought that was pretty clear.

Then what also should be clear is that the Linda problem has absolutely nothing to do with whether Jesus was a historical figure.

By gums I think he got it. The problem here demonstrates that those who want to refuse to acknowledge the obvious that it's more probable Jesus is myth Moreno than he is myth plus a historical person are simply wrong. I realize you eventually admitted this, but it was absolutely fascinating that everyone danced around it.

EtA: interesting since many since refusing to acknowledge the problem kept suggesting mark gives signs Jesus was a real boy. It's as I they couldn't simply leave well enough alone. Very fascinating.

[Res Ipsa]

This is the problem with your response. Simply repeating the same argument over and over and over without substantively responding to the issues that have been raised doesn't advance understanding at all.

I missed this earlier, Res Ipsa. I agree that's a big problem. I don't want to do it. I really, sincerely, don't know what to do when you have misunderstood, as demonstrated by the way you've characterized what I'm saying. To me this problem is not just one side, as you keep "harping on" . It's a communication between both. Once misunderstanding occurs and those who misunderstand aren't willing to hear the other, the misunderstanding seems to grow exponentially. That's too bad. This is an interesting topic. I found this all a very interesting exercise. I was completely surprised by the really weird responses, but it's kind of understandable when you consider the dilemma (and I'm sure my view on that, probably rankles a bit).

I'm perfectly willing to listen to any rational explanation you can give about why you think the "Linda problem" has any relevance at all to the topic we've been discussing at great length, and in at least the third thread now. Nobody is arguing that Mark isn't a story about Jesus. The single issue we've been discussing is whether, based on the evidence we have, it is more likely that Jesus was based on an actual historical person or not.

Most of that discussion has been focussed on whether Carrier's hypothesis is more consistent with the evidence than is a historical Jesus. But you moved from Carrier's hypothesis to the more general form of the question: is the evidence more consistent with a historical Jesus or not? Nothing wrong with that, as Carrier's hypothesis is just a specialized example of an argument for "not."

All is good to that point. But then you started to argue, in essence, that's it's more probable that Mark is a story than that Mark is a story about a historical figure. That, as I have not only asserted but have explained several times, is a complete non-sequitur. The Linda problem exists only when the brain fools us into thinking that A+B is more probable than A (leaving aside the special cases in which the probability of either is zero or 1). But no one to this point in the discussion has been claiming that A+B is more probable than A. In fact, I don't think anyone has argued that position in any of the three threads you've started on the subject. It's a complete red herring.

What people are reacting to is the fact that, while the the Linda problem is an interesting way to illustrate a specific problem that can occur in reasoning, no one has been making the mistake that the Linda problem illustrates. So the push back you've been getting is pretty natural reaction to the introduction of a red herring into the discussion. And you've had all kinds of opportunity to explain why you think the Linda problem is relevant to the discussion we've been having, and have been unable to do so. Instead, you've just postured as having scored some significant rhetorical point or have forced some kind of relevant concession, when what you've actually been doing is repeating a trivially true point that has no relevance to the discussion.

The discussion has been, from the beginning, of the form: Which is more probable? A+B or A+C, where A=We have a story about Jesus, B=The story is based on an actual historical person, and C=The story is not based on an actual historical person. So, when you make a big deal about A being more probable than A+B, the pushback isn't based on rejection of your claim, it's against the relevance of your claim to the topic at hand.

Yet another try: It is more probable that Mark is a story about Jesus than that Mark is a story about Jesus and the story is based on an actual historical person. Therefore, what? What conclusion do you draw from that fact that is relevant to what we've been discussing?

[Res Ipsa]

You absolutely do not understand what the Linda problem illustrates. The function of the preamble is to intentionally trick the brain into making a mistake. The logical principle it demonstrates is independent of the preamble. Nobody is arguing with you about the logical principle the Linda problem is intending to demonstrate. We're all arguing that it has nothing to do with the topic we've been discussing.

Oh no I got that about the preamble. Why do you think I've missed that? Of course the mark story has misled many to think it's more likely Jesus is myth and a historical person rather than just myth. that's a big part of the point here and seems to be why no one outright acknowledged the obvious.

OK, that's some progress. Of course, I don't take "of course" as evidence. Show me where Mark has led anyone to make the error you claim they've made. If it has indeed misled "many," you should be able to provide some examples. In fact, as you raised the issue in the context of this discussion, you should be able to show me examples right here in this thread.

You've misinterpreted why "no one outright acknowledged the obvious." It's because it's trivially obvious and has nothing to do with what we've been discussing.

So, time to step up. Show us examples of people being misled by Mark to claim that it's more likely that Jesus was a myth based on a historical person than that Jesus was a myth, regardless of whether the myth is based on a real person or not.

[honorentheos]

It's more likely that Jesus is a historical figure than it is that Jesus is a historical figure and a myth. Or, something something, homunculus screaming, "But Jesus is a myth is more likely" something.