It’s not a conspiracy to suggest that the New Testament, like the Vedas and the Sumerian King List, ought not be taken to be literal fact — especially when they claim the implausible.
Or ought we believe that Alulim ruled for 28,800 years because that’s what the text says?
That’s an unfair comparison.
Now you’re special pleading. Why treat the New Testament differently to any other historical text (whether religious or non-religious)?
Are you begging the question by assuming that it’s true and then using this assumption to justify distinguishing it from the Vedas and the Sumerian King List?
Really? Isn’t the null hypothesis preferred when there is no evidence?
It’s not special pleading. It’s the opposite. Treat the Jesus claim as any other claim and judge it on its merits. I’m not asking for differential treatment; I’m asking for equality.
@Dobbler Let’s see the null and alternative hypotheses.
Were we speaking of a specific claim, or generally? I was speaking generally, but if you would like to introduce a “for instance”, then the null hypothesis is that the “for instance claim” is not the case. The null hypothesis of “Jesus rose from the dead” is that that claim is not the case, or “Jesus didn’t rise from the dead”.
A null hypothesi and the alternative hypotheses are clear statements like H_0: p = 0.3 and H_a: p \ne 0.3. Formulate the null and alternative for Santa, please.
Look, If you’re going to require that I use formal symbolic logic to speak about a really very simple epistemological notion, then I can’t take you seriously.
The point is that a claim and it’s negation are not epistemically equivalent, so the pendulum doesn’t rest in the middle of the two. All things being equal, if there is no evidence to support a claim, it is unjustified and should be rejected. The “pendulum” is at rest in the negation, and only is moved by evidence.
Can you explain your point in simpler language? Symbolic notation is to simplify, not obfuscate. Your reaction is totally at odds with the principles of formalism.
Anyway, you mentioned the null hypothesis. It’s a statistical concept and the null is usually a statement of equality (of proportion/mean). The alternative hypothesis is a statement of inequality (>, <, \ne). I’d like to see the null and alternative hypotheses for Santa Claus. It’s an interesting exercise and thank you for it.
I have already edited my previous post to reflect my point. I apologize if I was using the term incorrectly, and if that led to an unfair reaction.
AFAIK the null and alternative hypotheses have to be based on proportion or mean. I’m trying to frame the Santa hypothesis using these 2 but I’m stuck.
I don’t have the data to formulate a hypothesis. Suppose the choice of a dad to dress up as Santa is a totally random event. So out of 4 dads the probability that 3 or more of them will dress us as Santa and create an illusion is \frac{C(4, 3)}{2^4} + \frac{C(4 , 4)}{2^4}= \frac{4}{16} + \frac{1}{16} = \frac{5}{16} = 0.3125. We take these 4 families and find that 3 of them have Santa Clauses visit them then at the significance level \alpha = 0.05, we see that this is not statistically significant (0.3125 > 0.05).
Sorry, that’s not interesting to me. The fact that the pendulum doesn’t rest in between a claim and it’s negation does.
Truth doesn’t interest you? 
What’s so difficult about not being certain/not knowing? Is it x or is it \neg x? We don’t know and so we neither affirm x nor negate x.
Nothing is wrong with not knowing. That isn’t the same as the pendulum sitting in between a claim and it’s negation. The reason it isn’t the case is that in a world where we don’t know things, and must take action, if there is no evidence to support a claim (all things being equal), it is more prudent to behave as if it weren’t true.
Perhaps the pendulum analogy isn’t the best but it does represent the neutral position between yes and no.
Yes, it’s better to assume something as not true in the absence of evidence. That was the whole point of this post.
There was a time when I had no evidence that there were things such as kangaroos. Yet they existed.
Really, I don’t know anything “for sure,” because there’s always the possibility that I might be mistaken, even in the assertion I just made. If someone asked me if Santa Claus existed, I would say, confidently, no. But it just can’t be absolutely and completely disproven. Not by you, or me, or anyone.
That’s true, due to the nature of proof. But what we’re both realizing here is that we don’t require proof in order to be sure about something. Or at least that’s how I read your statement “If someone asked me if Santa Claus existed, I would say, confidently, no.” A confident “no” means “I’m sure,” in my book. You go on to say that there’s always the possibility of being mistaken. True – but does that prevent you from saying, “I’m sure there’s no Santa”? I doubt it. We’re talking about how we use our language, our vocabulary, to express confidence and/or certainty, under various circumstances. In this case, imagine a child asking you, “Are you sure there’s not a monster under my bed?” What would you say? Would you be lying?
I am. The claim that 500 people saw Jesus resurrect from the dead can be dismissed as rubbish, given that there’s no evidence beyond Paul’s assertion, just as you likely dismiss as rubbish the claim that Alulim ruled for 28,800 years, of which there is no evidence beyond the assertion of whomever wrote the Sumerian King List.
People don’t resurrect from the dead or live 28,800 years. Appeals to “but Jesus was resurrected by Yahweh, his creator-deity Father” are as unconvincing as appeals to “but Alulim was granted a long life by Ereshkigal, goddess of the Underworld”.
On what grounds are you questioning the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection? Ir’s very unlikely, yes, and that’s why we have such strong evidence. The alternative would be, for that period, a global conspiracy. You’ll need to expand on that.
You seem to be trying to prove to me a point I just made.