(April 10, 2017 at 10:22 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:
SteveII Wrote:Well, except for the evidence we do have (which I will repeat as often as you make your silly, juvenile claim): The churches spread throughout the empire within 15 years of Jesus' death, the the 27 different authenticated writings discussing Jesus and his teachings, and ancillary works and references throughout the first century.
You may not like the evidence, but there is large amounts of evidence that points to the fact that Jesus not only walked the earth, but people genuinely believed he was the Son of God that came to make possible a relationship with God.
Except that is not evidence of what you want it to be evidence of. No one disputes that Christianity caught on. So what? So did Islam (and it's catching up despite Christianity's 800 year head start). No one disputes that Christians believed Jesus was the Son of God...that's what being a Christian means.
But none of that is evidence that Jesus was actually the demigod miracle-worker he needs to be for your religious beliefs to actually be true. The same evidence doesn't work for Krishna being an incarnation of Vishnu or Mohammed taking dictation from the archangel Gabriel. Having a standard of evidence means you have to apply it equally, without favor, to all similar claims. If you accept an argument from 'lots of people believed it', then you have to accept similar claims from other religions.
Christianity really existed and still does, and Christians believe Jesus was the son of God or God incarnate. That's not at all what is under contention here.
The problem is with defining words.
Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive.
The churches spread throughout the empire within 15 years of Jesus' death, the the 27 different authenticated writings discussing Jesus and his teachings, and ancillary works and references throughout the first century is certainly evidence that Jesus did what the people claim he did and said the things they claim he said.
Proof can have different thresholds. Anywhere from more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence), to beyond a reasonable doubt, to absolute. These are all arrived at by considering evidence. So, to say that my list is not evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine--that is the threshold you chose.
