Well, all I can say is that the quote does not alter the fact that Carrier "assign ~h to be the theory defined by Premises 1 through 5". What else is ~h assigned to? Carrier even acknowledges this is not technically correct in the very quote you cite, but provides an argument as to why he...

Interesting. I can only quote OHJ: "if I assign ~h to be the theory defined by Premises 1 through 5". Hmm. Let's continue the quote: if I assign ¬ h to be the theory defined by Premises 1 through 5, I can safely assume that h entails historicity (given my minimal definition of historicity...

Firstly, you are moving the goalpost: That quote actually does confirm what I said was true: that ~h is defined as premise 1 to 5. Secondly, that's just an assertion rather than an argument. Thirdly, the argument can't be right: Unless the list (premise 1 to 5) which carrier defines as "~h&quo...

Well, if you turn the page you will come to page 55 where Carrier writes: "I assign ~h to be the theory defined by Premises 1 through 5" . Stupid me, I read that and thought that meant ~h was defined to be premise 1 to 5, however, I am sure you can explain how that is not the case :-). No...

Well, I will be happy to try. But just so I know what I should look for can you say what you use as the definition of a typical historian in this context? I have no idea what you meant by 'typical', but I would describe an historian as someone who: a) Has a degree (Ph. D. or equivalent) obtained at...

Once more you are simply ignoring what is actually in OHJ. As I already wrote: ~h is not simply "Jesus was a mythical person historizised", but rather "~h" is defined as the list of propositions in OHJ, p.53. By that definition "~h" is not the negation of h. There is n...

His assessment on historicity, however, aligns with typical historians of the period and topic, though I would not argue that there are no respected dissenters. It does? Can you name one of these 'typical' historians who agree with Ehrman? I would be very interested in reading any article or monogr...

Regarding this issue of Ehrman not being a historian, what I keep thinking is that if we agree Ehrman not being a historian mean we should not put much weight in what he has to say about history, would that not imply we should not trust Carrier that much on probability theory? No one said we should...

An example of a formal error is when you use a mathematical symbol or rule different from it's definition. For instance, if I say that 2 + 2 = 5 that is a formal error because that is not how "+" is defined for integers. The negation of a proposition means something particular in Boolean ...

Well, I am aware that Carrier writes that. Here is the example I had in mind: Carrier defines h as the hypothesis that Jesus existed (OHJ, p. 30). Then ~h would (formally) be the logical negation of h, however in OHJ "~h" is defined as the list of propositions in OHJ, p.53. From a formal ...