Ive thought about this for a long time now,and ive finally found a place to talk about it. Around this messsage board ive seen people say show me the evidence.They say show me the evidence of God, or prove it with science.No one in America doubts that George Washington (to those that do not live in america sorry insert a famous person from your country that lived about 200 years ago) existed. but science cannot prove that he existed. Olny histroy can prove that.People will say but we have documents and written recoards proving he existed . My question is how can you say that any person from history existed, but say Jesus did not.
Many people believe Jesus existed, but that he wasn't god. Historical evidence showing that Jesus existed is not evidence for or against the existence of god.
True but I never said that Jesus was God.I believe it,but I was talking about the people that say he never existed.
I think a guy called Jesus did exist. This guy had convinced himself that he was the son of something called god and played out the part the best he could.
First of all ... Science deals with theories, i.e., testable explanations of observed phenomena. 'God(s)' is not a theory, but a placeholder for the lack of one. You make a determination based on the preponderance of evidence. In the case of George Washington, the evidence is overwhelming. In the case of Jesus, there is a dearth of evidence, and what little there is is of questionable quality.
I have two possible answers to your question. One, the idea mentioned by spurious, that a man called Jesus did exist, but that he was not what he claimed to be. Second, by claiming the son of God came down from heaven to die so mankind could gain access to heaven is a pretty extraordinary claims wouldn't you say? What claim do you think requires more evidence to support, the son of God coming down from heaven 2000 years ago or a President of the US existing 200 years ago? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.
Actually, as Sagan noted, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
snow, BTW welcome to sciforums. Documentation is certainly accepted as proof in many instances mainly because it is often widespread and written by multiple independent eyewitness authors. When such multiple independent sources are compared and when they tell the same story then logic by induction allows us to reach a significant degree of confidence that we have a truth. However, just because something is put in writing doesn’t necessarily mean it is true. One has to judge the nature of the topic, its credibility and the environment and culture in which the writings originated. For example several hundred years ago when the flat earth was a common belief many such writings attested to that as if it was fact. The issue here is that it wasn’t an observation but just a belief and such writings should always be considered highly suspect. But take a major figure from history, Gaius Julius Caesar 100 – 44 BCE for example. Someone we know existed and from just over 2000 years ago. The documentation about this man is extraordinary and from many multiple independent eyewitness sources. With such overwhelming documentation, its nature and sources gives us no reason to doubt his actual existence. Now consider the alleged Son of God, probably the most important man in the history of mankind, if he existed. One would think that the documentation and eyewitness accounts would also be overwhelming. But that is not what we find. There is only a single independent eyewitness account and that has been shown to be fraudulent, or at least so inconclusive as to be effectively useless as a reliable source. Refer to the issue of the Testimonium Flavianum http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/appe.shtml All the main documentation about the alleged Jesus was written decades after his death. But now consider the culture and the environment in which these texts were written. Most people at that time were illiterate and ideas of gods and superstitions were considered very real and to be taken seriously. But the ethics of objective reporting certainly did not exist, heck, it barely survives in our modern age. This was a time when people loved to hear stories and those about kings and gods would be considered the same way as we now watch CNN. It was common practice for storytellers to embellish and exaggerate their stories. In this environment the stories of Jesus arose. The origins of the idea are unknown although much of the NT seems to have been taken directly from earlier mythologies, and the rest seems to be pure adapted fiction. The primary story and the simplest version appears to come from the book known as Mark, the many authors of which are unknown, written at around 80 CE. Mathew, John and Luke then follow and borrow heavily from Mark and add further embellishments and exaggerations. These later books were written some 90 to 150 CE. So what we have is certainly a great deal of documentation, but no critical eye-witness accounts, and stories written decades after the alleged events at a time when myth-making was the norm and not the exception. With such a scenario do you wonder why someone would doubt that such a person as Jesus actually existed? There is no real evidence and certainly no proof.
and i actually thought that there was some concrete evidence of the existence of jesus, since so many people seem to think there is and talk about his existence as a fact. But I never bothered to check if there really was soem evidence of course. shows how easily the human mind is manipulated and how lazy it is...well...especially mine.
Thats an excellent actor, an actor who even knows that he will be worshiped even 2 thousands years later! An actor who was given the temptation to be a king and a dictator and ruler, yet chose to be simple, poor and humble, and take no charges for his sermon.... An actor who is so wise, that his words are excellent and perfect for governing reasons (famous for the words of love and forgiveness..).... An actor who at the end was crucified and tortured to death for his acting skills..... The apostles with him are also good actors, like St. Paul who was fed by the lions for preaching the good news, and st. Peter who was also tortured to death on the cross upside down... A good actors who gained nothing but being beaten, stoned, mocked, rejected for their acting skills......... and those acting skills were immitated with millions of actors who are martyred as well......... WOW! EVEN MEL GIBSON COULDNT PLAY THAT PART! WELL ATLEAST I DONT THINK SO...........THATS A GOOD ACTOR!!!
I read all of your words Cris...But your blinded by reality, why do I say this? Ill explain and prove to everyone here that you dont know reality, but indeed is brainwashed to the max, hardcore........ First let us deal with the famous words "supernatural"......Or "Beyond the laws of nature"... What does it take for things in order to be "Supernatural"? or above the laws of nature? In order for one to be supernatural, it must be not understood (by you who is the observer, but if it is understood by another person, it doesnt make it natural to the person who dont understand it, to him/her, it is supernatural...) Few years back, it would be supernatural in order for one to be able to land on the moon, or being able to detect the earthquake before it arrives, we can say it was the gods that did it, sorcery, witchcraft, but now we know that it is not supernatural, but is natural THROUGH HUMAN UNDERSTANDING, we call this method "SCIENCE".... Till this day, if you tell natives about internet, or other things, they may refer to you as magicians...But the point here is not about ignorance, the point here is that the word "natural" and "supernatural" lies on those who can understand or cannot understand what is being observed........ I have read alot of things concerning atheism's philosophy (which I think is pathetic.)...It is mainly based on "People is full of errors, therefore God dont exist.." and alot of ignorance..... Yes SOME people does exxagerate when they tell of things, but who are you to accuse the authors and historians of being a liar? Can you prove historians are telling the turht? Can you prove they are lying?? For instance, What about Jesus being able to cure people's cancers, blindness, sickness, etc. just by placing his hands over them...Or what about when he was aable to walk on water, or ascend into the sky before leaving the apostles, are this logic in the realm of science??? Scientifically speaking, the human brain is so complex that it is theorized that it is capable of being able to move objects, they have a word for this (I think it was "Parapsychokinetic".) James Randi, a famous skeptic guy is being able to perfom this fact, he can bend spoons and forks with a slight touch of his fingers using the power of his mind. Thats why when a person is placed on morphine (whatever the drug is)..Even though the man is skinny, the drug that reaches his brain causes his muscles to move that it can break handcuffs with a pressure of 500 lbs, a skinny guy, this is scientifically proven. But in the other hand, how is this also scientifically proven that a skinny guy is that strong when he is so small? Is it logic to say a skinny 130 lbs guy can bench press 500 lbs?? I can also place the same questions applied to history, technologies (computers, internet, etc.) and everything else (if I was unaware of any of its existence..) using that method, I can bring about flaw to almost anything......... Jesus said "Amen I say unto you, if you have a faith as small as a mustard seed, you can tell the mountains to move from here to there, and it will move"... That is just to show that the power of god given mind is very great, science have stated that we only use about 15% of our brain (I think), the rest of the 85% lies unused. When Jesus cures a man, he always ends with "YOUR FAITH HAS HEALED YOU...." If science proved that the power of the mind can also give effect outside of the human body, then who are you to say that the human brain if more potent cannot walk on water or rise from gravity?? Today there are still things we cant understand, some of you may label such as supernatural, or the gods, or sorcery...An example is the virtual particle that comes in and out of existence...How does this make sense?? Come into existence as in the form of invisibility? Or in existence cannot be detectedthrough all our technologies?? IN SUMMARY...TO OTHER GUYS IT IS SUPERNATURAL FOR ONE TO EAT RAZOR SHAREP BLADES OR DRINK POISONOUS VENOM AND NOT BEING HARMED, TO THE OTHER THIS IS NATURAL BECAUSE HIS BODY IS IMMUNE TO IT AND THE BLADES ARE NOT BEING PRE-PROGRAMMED INTO HIS MIND, THUS TAKING AWAY ITS EFFECT ON THE FLESH (POWER OF THE MIND..).. FOR ONE IT IS SUPERNATURAL FOR A MAN TO PRAY, AND HIS INCURABLE CANCER BEING HEALED, TO THE OTHER IT IS NATURAL BECAUSE HE ACCUSES THE POWER OF THE MIND BEING THE RESPONSIBLE, THOUGH THIS IS JUST A THEORY, BUT IT MAY ONE DAY BE PROVEN....... BUT WHAT DOES ALL THIS POINT OUT TO? IT JUST POINTS OUT THAT THE UNIVERSE AND ALL ITS ENTITY IS GREAT DESIGN, COMPLEX, FUNCTIONING, AND ORDERED........ TO BE ABLE T0 UNDERSTAND THINGS CLEARLY DOESNT PUT THE CREATOR OUT OF THE PICTURE, BUT IT PROVES THAT OUR INDEPENDENCE CAN BE USED FOR GOOD PURPOSE, AND EVIL PURPOSE...THERE ARE ALOT OF INTELLIGENT PEEPS THAT ARE BELIEVERS OF GOD, OTHERS ARE JUST PLAIN STUPID...... GOD IS FAR PROVEN ALREADY, YOUR ALL JUST IN DENIAL...MANY EVIDENCE PRESENT FOR HIS EXISTENCE (MIRACLES, TESTIMONIALS, SCRIPTURES, HISTORY, SCIENCE, ETC...) BUT NOT ONE EVIDENCE LIES THAT HE DONT EXIST AND NOT ONE EVIDENCE LIES THAT NATURE IS "LUCK"..........I REST MY CASE................ oops I almost forgot..You cannot label what are the laws of physics (inertia, torque, speed of light, etc.) and all of the laws of nature (lightning, gravity, etc..).. CAN YOU LIST ALL OF THE LAWS OF NATURE AND PHYSICS? NO, THATS WHY WE STILL COULDNT EXPLAIN HOW LIFE CAME INTO EXISTENCE..... THE POINT IS YOU CANNOT SAY "GOD IS SUPERNATURAL" FOR IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT CLAIM, YOU MUST BE ABLE TO KNOW EVERY LAWS OF NATURE AND EVERY LAWS OF PHYSICS, BUT SINCE SCIENCE ADMONISHES THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN SUCCESFULL ON THIS RESEARCH, THEN YOU CANNOT SAY "GOD IS SUPERNATURAL"......(supernatural= what we cannot understand, outside of what we label as laws of nature..) GOT IT? OR NEED MORE EXPLAINING?????
Yeah, you're right, Mel Gibson rocks! As for Jesus, all the information about him comes from the bible which (for me) holds as much water as a colander.
really riveting stuff, but a supernatural force is nothing more than a force that is above the natural. Not something we don't understand. if we had seen a moonlanding 100 years ago, we might have been flabbergasted, but it could have been explained with the laws of physics. It is just that we coulnd't comprehense the technology, since we didn't have it. supernatural would have been if a house on earth would have been taken without any natural assistence (such as rocketpower) and placed instantly on the moon, and the occupants of the house would surive without oxygen. It would have defied every natural and biological law. GOT IT. OR DO YOU NEED MORE EXPLAINING WHATSUP???
Cris: I am interested in whether you in fact dispute that there was a man called Jesus who caused some fuss with the Romans some time around the year 30 AD. Where there's smoke, surely there must be at least a little fire, don't you think?
Now what do you propose of a biological existence which is composed of amino acids...Obviously we can succesfully create amino acids out of methane, hydrogen, and amonia, (strike of lightning) but since it became a mitochondria, ribosome, cytoplasm, cell membrane, nucleus, etc. etc..AND SINCE YOU CLAIM TO KNOW EVERY NATURAL AND BIOLOGICAL LAW...AND NONE HAVE SUCCESSFULLY CREATED SUCH, IS THIS THEN BEYOND THE LAWS OF NATURE? SO YOUR PROPOSING THAT LIFE IS SUPERNATURAL... GOT IT MONKEY? OR NEED MORE EXPLANATION??
The whole damn 2nd Temple Period was in decline. There was 'smoke' everwhere and for any number of reasons. What smoke can/do you attribute to 'Jesus' and why? Do you know of some independent verification of "some fuss with the Romans some time around the year 30 AD"? If not, isn't it a bit like using some text about the Tin Man to suggest that the Wizard of Oz might be real?
I believe any reputable scientist will tell you we still know only a fraction of how the universe works. That's why they are all called theories, they are designed to be replaced if a better model is proposed. All current theories are the best working models that match the data we see...they can and most likely will be modified in the future. So to state that we know all laws of nature, and thus we don't know how to do something, so it must be outside the realm of natural law, is wrong. It's making a huge assumption to further your argument, without evidence of your argument.
Wrong again whatsup. Just because we have thus far been unsuccessful in creating life in the labratory doesn't mean it's a supernatural event. I fear you are twisting definitions to suit your needs, so I will post the definition of supernatural here: su·per·nat·u·ral ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spr-nchr-l) adj. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. Of or relating to a deity. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous. Of or relating to the miraculous. As you can see, this has nothing to do with science. Life certainly is not above the laws of nature, but that's what you're claiming.
