Philosophy is detrimental to the analysis of religion

[athoughtfulman]

The way I see it if the evidence for an argument far out weighs the arguments against then I consider the the former the most valid argument.In the case of Jesus I feel that the evidence for the non existence of Christ far out weighs the evidence against it.

Granted, the evidence for the nonexistence of christ far outweighs the evidence against it. But that is not a 100% absolute statement, which is what EvF is trying to say. Whether we use science or philosophy we still come to the same point - that something is simply not 100% proven or unproven. Whenever the evidence is more in favour of something not existing, then we assume it doesn't exist, at least for all practical purposes. However, we cannot say that it is 100% not existing.

This comes back to atheism - I don't believe in god because I can 100% disprove him, I don't believe in god because as far as the evidence is concerned, god is very unlikely to exist. But I lack a watertight, 100%, conclusion.

Philosophy can be helpful, but too often it's distorted and overreaching. It clearly can't provide proof of anything, just another perspective of something. And on occasion science ends up in the same place, for example in the case of jesus, science is incapable (at this point) of 100% disproving the existence of jesus.