Existence of Jesus

[chatpilot]

EvF I tend to disagree with your conclusion that Jesus cannot be proven to have not existed 100% based on the current available evidence.The most damning evidence against the existence of Christ the man is the lack of evidence in the secular records.The fact that even historians of the period had nothing to say make him rather unspectacular in fact,irrelevant.The fact that the religion itself was accepted by Constantine and became a political force tell me that government at that time used Christianity as a means to control the populace through superstition and fear.

Christianity in my view was gaining popularity against the Roman religion of sun worship.So the old adage comes into play here: "if you cant beat em join em".Christian history itself proves these assumptions to be true in the many wars and inquisitions imposed by the church and backed and at times enforced by the government.

Not to mention that the gospels themselves are second and third hand accounts of the story of Christ and are so similar to previous myths that all it proves is that like all myths this particular myth evolved with the times.This is evident even in todays modern world Christianity like all religions have to roll with the changes or face extinction.

These claims are not negative proofs but in my opinion very positive proofs against the existence of Christ.A similar analogy is evident with evolution and natural selection.It is observed in various fields of science and the natural world confirms it.To say that evolution is just a theory would in fact demonstrate the ignorance of the one making such a claim regarding the processes behind evolution.When the answers are so evident and obvious in the natural world around us.

[Edwardo Piet]

The negative proof fallacy is a fallacy when someone says "Prove this doesn't exist".

That's a fallacy because you cannot prove that ANYTHING doesn't exist. Including Jesus. Not 100%.
That's a fallacy.

There could be very many logical contradictions showing Jesus never existed. But we cannot prove he never existed because he could be the 1 exception where ALL the laws of the universe were violated if need be, even. Or whatever! However unlikely!

Even then, Jesus is still not 100% disproved.
Just as you cannot 100% disprove the FSM or the IPU.

You cannot prove 100% the non-existence of anything. That would be negative proof. Claiming negative proof is a logical fallacy.

Put simply: The furthest we can go is that Jesus is about as unlikely as the FSM and the IPU, etc.

And remember they are not disproved. That's the whole point of their analogy (along with the Teapot). Its not about whether something is disprovable, its about whether its probable.

EvF

[DD_8630]

EvF I tend to disagree with your conclusion that Jesus cannot be proven to have not existed 100% based on the current available evidence.

I agree with EvF here: evidence cannot prove the existence or non-existence of something. We can evidence something and make it more and more likely (or unlikely) to be true, but, short of a logical disproof, anything is possible.

These claims are not negative proofs but in my opinion very positive proofs against the existence of Christ.

A suspicious lack of evidence is just that: suspicious. It could simply be bad luck that no contemporary, first-hand, extra-Biblical evidence has survived.

A similar analogy is evident with evolution and natural selection.It is observed in various fields of science and the natural world confirms it.To say that evolution is just a theory would in fact demonstrate the ignorance of the one making such a claim regarding the processes behind evolution.When the answers are so evident and obvious in the natural world around us.

Actually, calling it a theory is accurate: it is no more than a theory. The fact that it is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence just means that it is exceedingly probable. No theory can ever be proven, nor be promoted to 'fact'.

[Edwardo Piet]

In a sophisticated scientific and philosophical sense - evolution is a theory.

But there are many who often say "Its just a theory" like its weak in some kind of colloquial sense of "I have a theory".

Dawkins said in a discussion with Lawrence Krauss (and I paraphrase); how evolution is a theory in the philosophically sophisticated sense; but in the colloquial sense it is a fact.

Here it is: - 7 minutes into part 3 of the Dawkins Discussion with Lawrence Krauss, - Dawkins talks to Krauss about two different uses of the word 'theory'.

[youtube]25WPs7oJtKo[/youtube]

You could watch the whole thing on youtube but I'm afraid that part 6 is actually missing from youtube now.
Most of its there I think. Well others that I checked today thus far at least.

Anyway here's the relevant bit. 7 minutes in. About 7.05 I think.

EvF

[chatpilot]

The one thing about science is that unlike religion it does not claim absolute truths when confirming theories.It is fully aware that as knowledge on a subject matter increases the theory whatever that theory may be is also subject to change.Evolution is in my view is a theory that has strong supportive evidence in various branches of science and in the natural world.

Religion (in this case Christianity) claims absolute truth that is irrefutable and undeniable basing themselves on what is written in a mythological book.My argument in general is that Evolution as opposed to ID or Creationism is the most likely to have occurred.I had a funny thought the other day regarding the creationist view of mans origin.It reminded me of the tale of Pinnochio where according to the scriptures God formed a man from mud and breathed the breath of life into him.It's not that different from the fairy granting Pinnochio his wish to be a real boy.Then God puts Adam into a nice deep sleep and extracts a rib from which he creates Eve.

From a logical standpoint evolution through the process of natural selection is the more likely explanation for our origins.Although it is referred to as the "theory of evolution" it has been an established fact among scientific circles.Religionist have nothing more than the ramblings of a bunch of primitive nomadic tribesmen to validate thier entire belief system.In my view it's a no brainer.The fact that the existence of Christ is part of that great document of ignorance known as the bible tells me that it is also a part of the myth perpetuated by ignorance.

The lack of evidence for the existence of Christ tells me simply that he did not exist.In order to accept the existence of Christ I would have to accept the bible as fact and do so on faith,which in my view is nothing more than voluntarily giving up my powers of logic and reason.There are alot of circular arguments going on here and its really quite simple.Eliminate the bible as a valid proof and then the so called evidence for the existence of Jesus disappears.The bible has not been able to stand up to scrutiny and in scientific matters it has been proven that its many assumptions are fallacious.This alone invalidates the bible as a proof for anything in it that cannot be verified by secular means and historians of the period.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes there is certainly no evidence of biblical Jesus of the bible which is extremely improbable.

But the furthest you can go with the supernatural Jesus AND - just Jesus as a man - and anything for that matter - is extremely extremely extremely (as many extremelies as you want, on into infinity indeed) improbable. Almost certainly does not exist.

It is a logical fallacy to say Jesus; or anything can have the existence of it disproved. Negative proof is a logical fallacy.

This does not mean you have to believe Jesus of course! You need evidence FOR something to believe it logically. Not AGAINST it.

The lack of evidence and all the contradictions can make things very improbable indeed. But by no known means can science absolutely disprove anything.

You said a truth that science does not claim absolutes - unlike religion.

But if anything - I think even MORE so, - science doesn't claim absolute DISprove.

Either absolute disprove and absolute proof are kind of on the same even footing - as something science does NOT claim. Or if anything I think - absolute DISprove would be MORE absurd to claim.

Like I said - it is a logical fallacy to prove a negative.

Since with claiming absolute proof of a POSITIVE - I think that science just cannot do that. Because some new info could always come in. It always has. How can we know?

But negative proof is a logical fallacy. However improbable somthing is or few evidence there is of that something - you cannot PROVE its NON-existence by any so far KNOWN means - AT LEAST.

EvF

[chatpilot]

It's true that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the existence of Christ outside the scriptures.And the scriptures themsleves are dubious.The burden of proof is completely on the side of the believer and not the unbeliever.But it is good to know both sides of the argument since you must know what it is that you are refuting.

[Edwardo Piet]

I agree with all of that.

I have just been saying that Jesus is not and very probably CANNOT be disproved 100%.

You cannot prove his non-existence because that's the fallacy of 'negative proof'.

Just as the FSM and IPU, despite the fact they are completely unplausibable and extremely improbable - they are just that: extremely improbable. They are not disproved. To claim that they are or that Jesus is, would be a the fallacy of 'negative proof'.

In other words, you cannot, by any known means, prove a negative.

[chatpilot]

EvF I got it lol

[Edwardo Piet]

Cool - we're getting somewhere

Or are we?

:p