Existence of Jesus

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah. Very good point.

I guess its possible that the Jesus of the bible could just be based on some bloke who came up with Christianity but no one really liked the idea until it was massively exaggerated in the bible lol. Then it could have perhaps been more interesting and have had more of an effect lol.

Yeah, good point indeed.

EvF

[DD_8630]

I know Occam's razor says when everything is otherwise the same then the least entities postulated is the most parsimonious.

But as it says everything otherwise the same - there are exceptions right?

Perhaps its more likely that a character is based on someone than just made up from scratch for instance?

Ah, but it's just that probability that we're trying to calculate. Everything else is the same: we have exactly zero evidence supporting or refuting any of the scenarios, and they only differ in the whether 'Jesus' exists or not. So, since the 'Jesus-less' one is more parsimonious (it has one less entity than the others), it is more likely to be true than the others (according to Occam's Razor, at least).

I mean I'm going by how I think an awful lot of characters are based on someone rather than totally made up. And I think the founder of Christianity would perhaps be MORE of a target of exaggeration and making a big deal of. Perhaps more likely than making the whole thing up 100%. I dunno.

But why is it more likely?

So my question is - is it perhaps more likely in general that 'characters' are based especially in situations like this perhaps?

No: without evidence supporting their existence, these characters are no more likely to exist (or to be based on then-living people) than giants and leprechauns.

Perhaps we should just say: "it is more parsimonious to assume that there was no Jesus at all than to assume the supernatural Jesus of the bible was based on someone that we could call the 'real' Jesus." ?

Is it necessarily more likely, statistically?

Have I said anything worthwhile here or am I MERELY confusing myself as opposed to just confusing myself while I'm trying to think this through ?

EvF

Anything you say is worthwhile! Though you seem to be confusing 'parsimony' with 'plausible'. A theory is parsimonious if it is simple (i.e., lacks any unnecessary entities), and Occam's Razor says that the more parsimonious something is, the more likely it is to be true.

[Edwardo Piet]

But even LEPRECHAUNS are based on people somewhat.

Just as David Hume said how we take things from the real world and put them together.

E.G: Angels for example - and put very simply and basically - are people (real) and they have wings ( wings are also real) but they're put together to form something that doesn't really exist. So you get winged people.

What I'm wondering isn't statistically most people and characters based on someone or something similar enough rather than just made up completely out of scratch?

Surely its not THAT improbable that Jesus of the bible could have been stolen from some bloke who really existed.

Yes its postulating an entity for Jesus to be based on. It is simpler to have no entities.

But maybe its more likely for something to be based on something else - be based on another entity - than made up altogether?

Aren't MOST things based on other things? And an awful lot of 'characters' are based on real people aren't they?

If Jesus is more likely to be completely made up I don't think its that under 50% that someone simply got the idea from some bloke who was inspiring or at least interesting enough to make up such nonsense!! I dunno?

EvF

[Kyuuketsuki]

Surely its not THAT improbable that Jesus of the bible could have been stolen from some bloke who really existed.

OTOH it's not specifically necessary to have a real person at the root of the myth and the commonalities with pre-existing religions suggests that aspects (if not the whole character) is based on other myths rather than any single real person.

I take the non-existent Jesus stance for several reasons ... first the lack of specific evidence (no direct eye-witness accounts, several accounts increasingly becoming viewed as later interpolations), the commonalities mentioned above and that taking the stance that I will not accept the literal existence of Jesus Christ without reasonable evidence creates a problem for debating theists in the sense that they either have to prove it or we agree to move past that based on an assumptive existence which (of course) I can always refer back to at a later stage. It also tends to wind theists up and that can't be a bad thing

Kyu

[Bungy]

Kyuuketsuki (The Angry Atheist)
Too Stupid to Understand Science? Try Religion.
Intelligent Design: Helping Stupid People Feel Smart Since 1987

good sig dude

[Kyuuketsuki]

Kyuuketsuki (The Angry Atheist)
Too Stupid to Understand Science? Try Religion.
Intelligent Design: Helping Stupid People Feel Smart Since 1987

good sig dude

Thanks ... can't claim credit for inventing it though

Kyu

[DD_8630]

But even LEPRECHAUNS are based on people somewhat.

Just as David Hume said how we take things from the real world and put them together.

E.G: Angels for example - and put very simply and basically - are people (real) and they have wings ( wings are also real) but they're put together to form something that doesn't really exist. So you get winged people.

Aye, and unicorns are horses with horns, werewolves are wolf men, etc. But that doesn't mean there was any one horse or wolf on which unicorns and werewolves are based. Jesus is

What I'm wondering isn't statistically most people and characters based on someone or something similar enough rather than just made up completely out of scratch?

Surely its not THAT improbable that Jesus of the bible could have been stolen from some bloke who really existed.

It's not that improbable; it is quite plausible indeed. But the point is that it's not as probable as the 'complete fabrication' idea.

Yes its postulating an entity for Jesus to be based on. It is simpler to have no entities.

But maybe its more likely for something to be based on something else - be based on another entity - than made up altogether?

Aren't MOST things based on other things? And an awful lot of 'characters' are based on real people aren't they?

Not necessarily. There are countless millions of characters in texts of dubious factual basis, old religious texts being at the top of that pile.

Do you believe the Bible's Adam, or Noah, or Moses, are based on a real person?

If Jesus is more likely to be completely made up I don't think its that under 50% that someone simply got the idea from some bloke who was inspiring or at least interesting enough to make up such nonsense!! I dunno?

It's entirely plausible, yes, but given the total lack of evidence, we have to defer to the logical stance: there is absolutely no evidence or rationale supporting the existence (exaggerated or otherwise) of Jesus, so postulating that he did exist is as much a stab-in-the-dark as the idea that he is the Son of God.

It all come down to evidence. If you don't have evidence or rationale for the existence of something, then it is more probable that it doesn't/didn't exist in the first place.

[Edwardo Piet]

Good point. And good point about the Adam and Noah part...

But I dunno - perhaps they were based on family members.

Like someone who was missing a rib? Lol

Someone who owned a boat with a FEW animals on.

And the flood was made up lol.

Yeah - its more parsimonious to assume that there was no character to be based upon.

But is completely made up more parsimonious? Gotta be made up some way.

If you wanted a biblical character wouldn't you want SOME substance to start with?

Isn't it CLOSER to like 50/50. I'm really not that sure which is more probable.

Its simpler to assume there was no one to be based on....

But then on the other hand - couldn't it be very likely that he was based on someone?

It may be simpler, but is it actually more probable? I mean as a general rule its simpler at least.

Made up completely - is that more probable than based on someone? Considering the popularity of such a character?

Perhaps someone would have figured it out ages ago if there was NO ONE he was based on. No one who was exaggerated upon...

If that last line is correct grammar at all? Lol.

Just speculation really. I certainly don't believe in Jesus of the bible.

But for such a character to be based on someone isn't that quite likely?#

And as Kyu said he could be based on many. And there were many characters in the past similar to Jesus.

But if that's the case isn't it plausible that he was based on someone more than others? And the rest kind of attributed to some of his attributes and character traits?

Although I guess it could have just been some sort of gradudal development or 'evolution' of 'Jesus and/or Jesusy' characters

EvF

EDIT:I was Re-reading our convo DD and I saw where you said basically that what is my reason and evidence for believing that Jesus is more likely to exist or perhaps more likely to exist.

And you said how you think its more parsimonious to say it was just all made up rather than based on someone.

Well the thing is I forgot some of the reasons I came to my conclusion or conclusionISH conclusion lol.

It was the chapter about scripture in TGD and the argument from scripture in Arguments for God's existence mostly I believe. Where Dawkins concluded that just as God almost certainly doesn't exist: a SUPERNATURAL Jesus almost certainly doesn't and never did exist.

But he concluded that a non-supernatural Jesus probably existed. And I forget some of the reasons - I better re-read that chapter.

Gotta check if there's anything substantial there.

Although I guess its possible Dawkins MAY have been bending over backwards for the theists? Although its not like him if that's the case!

I guess to say you dont' believe God exists is one thing but to say you don't believe Jesus existed even in NON-supernatural form is maybe something else! (to Christians I mean).

Although at his interview at T5M.com Dawkins was asked who he'd have for dinner if he could pick anyone from the past. He of course picked Darwin - but he also picked Jesus 'to find out what really happened'.

So seems perhaps he does believe Jesus existed in some form?

I'll recheck those related parts from TGD.

EvF

[chatpilot]

EvF my point in this whole debate is pretty simple.Jesus and the entire gospel story is a rehash of previous ancient myths and god men of pagan religious beliefs.Jesus was not the only god man to be crucified and born of a virgin and ascend back to heaven.An instructive thing to do is some comparative religious studies and see how similar the gospel stories are compared to more ancient myths and how some elements of ancient myths were later incorporated into the gospel fiction.

If you take the time to analyze christianity you will see how many elements from more ancient pagan beliefs are presented in the Jesus myth.There are elements from some natural religions and such entities as Mithra of persian myths and even the story of Krishna in its more ancient texts.In fact do a google on similarities between Christ and pagan gods and you will find a wealth of information to dig through.Start with Christ and Krisha.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well of course - and as I have said - I do not remotely believe in the supernatural Jesus of the BIBLE.

I'm only considering a 'real' Jesus that the Jesus of the bible was based on more so than the other characters or something.
As I said I will look more into TGD chapters.

From what you and DD are saying there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe or any real evidence. And I see that the fact there are so many similar characters add to the whole thing that it seems very likely he was completely made up!

But remember Chatpilot that it is not and (as far as we know) cannot PROVE (100%) that Jesus was made up - no matter the evidence and contradictions...

Because that would be a logical fallacy - negative proof - you cannot prove a negative.
But Jesus certainly can be ALMOST completely disproved to the point that he almost certainly doesn't exist and never did. But he cannot be disproved as in 100%.