If Jesus is to Make Appearance

May 2011
2,926
Rural Australia
Since Muhammad is the founder of Islam and was entirely responsible for advancing Islam and Constantine is not the founder of Christianity and his degree of advancing Christianity is debated, there is a bit of ambiguity in the assertion from your post #248. IOW, arguably, equivalency distortion or an overgeneralization / too broad of an assertion.
Muhhamad dies 632 CE. What is the first mention of Mecca in the ancient sources? What is the date of the first coin bearing the genius of name of Muhammad? [685/686 CE]. Who issued this coin? Did Islam give birth to the Arab Empire or did the Arab Empire give birth to Islam? Some historians believe that Islam appears with the dynastic rulers after the death of Muhammad.

In any event my assertion was that - like Sassanid Persian Zoroastrianism, and Roman Christianity - Islam was implemented in the Arabian empire by the military rulers of that empire, and at a time which coincided with the zenith of their military power.
 
May 2011
2,926
Rural Australia
Instinctually, as a falibilist, I initially gave DP24 just a "more than likely as opposed to not" chance rating. But, this was before my studies with Bayes' Theorem and Statistical methods in general.

The use of statistics require an assessment based on what we know. The point is to avoid giving hypotheticals or "what if" scenarios the same weighting as known items. So, it is difficult for me to imagine a scenario where the rating drops below 99%, BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW. It is formulaic, but, that is how the method disciplines our analysis.
The further we go back in time the greater are the UNKNOWNS, and it is for this reason I provided an 85% probability on the claim about the dating DP24 to the 3rd century. Alot of UNKNOWN un-evidenced stuff can happen in almost eighteen centuries. If the secure burial of DP24 had happened last century for example I would agree with your 99% assessment. Every century we go back in time, should it not be logical that the certainty held about any claims should increase? How does Bayes handle the reality of increasing unknowns?
 
Last edited:
Likes: Edratman

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,222
The further we go back in time the greater are the UNKNOWNS, and it is for this reason I provided an 85% probability on the claim about the dating DP24 to the 3rd century. Alot of UNKNOWN un-evidenced stuff can happen in almost eighteen centuries. If the secure burial of DP24 had happened last century for example I would agree with your 99% assessment. Every century we go back in time, should it not be logical that the certainty held about any claims should increase? How does Bayes handle the reality of increasing unknowns?
Going back in time has no bearing on the secure dating of the artifact. IOW, the fact that it was found in a securely datable debris field and was found under a securely datable layer of bricks will secure the date no matter how far back we go.

What is "the reality of increasing unknowns ?" I don't recognize this concept.

Specifically developed hypotheticals are factored in at a prescribed rate of 1/100,000 or if it is argued that the "what if" scenario is plausible then maybe 1/10,000. re: Proving History, Richard Carrier. These are considered significant "guesses". IOW, one would not get on a plane if the chance of it crashing was 1/100,000.

An artifact with a secure rating of 99% could contain hundreds of "what if" scenarios.

We are able to date items much further back than DP24, re: Ancient Egypt or Ancient Mesopotamia.

The fact that it was "almost eighteen centuries" is a red herring. It simply has no impact on the equation.

What matters is the character of the evidence and the data sources being used to date the item.
 
Last edited:

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,222
If the secure burial of DP24 had happened last century for example I would agree with your 99% assessment.
I take this to mean that you have no KNOWN evidence to contradict Kraeling's report. If I am wrong please let me know.

Keep in mind, that "old style" historical analysis would simply call DP24 "direct physical evidence" and consider the matter closed. IOW, DP24 is primary evidence that is contemporary and authentic with the site. It was found without question in a securely datable debris field, UNDER a securely datable layer of bricks.

Carrier, in his Proving History [p.94] states that a 99% rating means, "only 1 in 100 chance of being otherwise." DP24, in regard to the terminus ante quem of 256 CE, given this rating definition, is appropriately rated IMHO at 99%. A 99% rating means we are allowing for multiple unknowns (hypotheticals) and we are giving them, the "what-if scenarios" a significant weighting.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Edratman
May 2011
2,926
Rural Australia
Accepting DP24 as a 3rd century artefact (which I have so considered above), we have an attestation to a "Harmony Gospel" at that date, not a "Canonical Gospel". It is currently believed that the canonical gospels appeared first and the harmony gospels appeared second, but this may not necessarily be the case.
 
Likes: Cepheus

Similar History Discussions