Quote:
Originally Posted by BeaconofTruth
Any other thoughts on this?
|
If your null hypothesis is that The Bible is false, why are 6 of the 7 references from the book itself? That is not how statistics work.
The 7th reference is to people dying for their beliefs. That demonstrates nothing about the beliefs.
In the Josephus link I read
Quote:
We will not investigate the question of Josephus' reliability closely here
|
which I would have considered critical an any analysis such as you have linked to.
Additionally, I noticed a link to some source offering to—what was it again?—oh yes: to
astrologically determine who I had been in past lives. That is utterly unbiblical, and so in rejecting what The Bible says about that, especially in the light of its falsehood being your null hypothesis, why should the reader accept its veracity on the other points?
Further, I could not see any probabilities calculated, or even suggested, that
H0 is false.
From the point of view of the statistical method you're using, that is beyond pivotal. Is is the sole objective.
Christians believe The Bible. For such readers the resurrection is not actually in doubt in the first place. Really, that is a tautology I suppose but there are people who
claim to be Christians yet disbelieve its testimony so it's worth mentioning the point. In seeking to convince others who do not accept The Bible as evidence but as "the claim" some extra-biblical material needs to be included. Material from the Sanhedrin might satisfy that criterion but when I followed the link I found a précis of what the Sanhedrin
was, nothing about what they
had written. Which is the same as
no evidence from the Sanhedrin.
I hope that is helpful.