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?
Or closer to 50/50 at least.
Maybe its 60/40 that Jesus was based on a 'real' Jesus rather than 100% made up.
Maybe its 60/40 that Jesus was made up 100%.
Maybe its 90% likely he was completely made up.
We cannot know - and we certainly cannot know exactly I mean! At least as of yet!!
But maybe its more parsimonious that he was based on someone? Y'know?
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.
So my question is - is it perhaps more likely in general that 'characters' are based especially in situations like this perhaps?
Is that just a stupid question? Am I just being stupid here?
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
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?
Or closer to 50/50 at least.
Maybe its 60/40 that Jesus was based on a 'real' Jesus rather than 100% made up.
Maybe its 60/40 that Jesus was made up 100%.
Maybe its 90% likely he was completely made up.
We cannot know - and we certainly cannot know exactly I mean! At least as of yet!!
But maybe its more parsimonious that he was based on someone? Y'know?
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.
So my question is - is it perhaps more likely in general that 'characters' are based especially in situations like this perhaps?
Is that just a stupid question? Am I just being stupid here?
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
