Scientific Approach to the Jesus question
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
We????Cris said:
You and what mouse in yo pocket son?
There is everything to indicate, you just refuse to see it...
Don't try to refute this.....just walk away, with your dignity still partially intact.
Yes God can create Himself in this realm, from a Spirit to a physical manifestation.
Jesus Christ is the beginning of the creation of God.
The firstborn of many brethren.
No amount of debate or stubborn refusal can disprove this.
You only make yourself look foolish if you try.
Please don't.
Last edited:
Once again Visitor you come up with this argument:
As has been said many times, atheists generally don't believe because there's no proof, not that we deny the existence. Two completely different things.
What are the indications?
We're not trying to disprove, we're asking for the proof that is true.
As has been said many times, atheists generally don't believe because there's no proof, not that we deny the existence. Two completely different things.
TheVisitor,
Show us some evidence for your claims.
Those who practice and are capable of reasoned thought.
Please provide any single example that demonstrates a creator exists as opposed to a more credible natural explanation.
Provide the proof for your claim then. I see nothing that suggests a creator either exists or existed or is necessary.
Your proof and examples can be found where?
Not only do we have nothing to indicate gods exist or could exist or have ever existed but there is nothing yet that shows that a Jesus ever existed either. Or do you have some tangible scientific evidence?
Disprove what? You haven’t presented anything yet that can be addressed, you have only made unsubstantiated assertions.
Good try, very funny.
Show us some evidence for your claims.
Cris said:
That wasn't the point.
Got some mighty good grades though. Sounds like missed a lot yourself.
Do you work a real job yourself?
Explain why that is a showstopper for you. be specific.
Lord Kelvin disagrees with you.
ok so communication isn't working.
Proove it.
I'm sorry but it does.
But, the imagination is just another machine isn't it?
Ok then, take a stroll down red herring lane if you wish.
Logical
I’ve been giving this question some thought lately.
I have been following this thread, but not religiously, so forgive me of someone already brought this perspective and I missed it.
A scientific approach to the Jesus question would be remiss without looking at the purpose of science and discovery.
What is the main goal and purpose of science? To observe phenomena and their interactions with each other with the end result of discerning the results of those interactions to gather knowledge that can be used to accurately predict the outcome of said interactions under controlled situations. We gather knowledge in order to use that knowledge to our advantage. Science, then, is wholly pragmatic in its endeavors - it is only interested in results.
History - whether you are discussing rumors of a God-man 2000 years ago, governmental propaganda from World War II or the CNN news broadcast last night – relies almost entirely on anecdotal evidence.
Science, on the other hand, all but rejects anecdotal evidence, due to the fact that it cannot be independently and objectively verified. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence often completely undermines the whole concept of a controlled environment. Finally, anecdotal evidence, by its very nature, is wholly subjective, therefore generally considered fairly useless.
This, along with the scientific tenet that you cannot prove a negative, virtually guarantees that there is no way to prove that Jesus did not exist. Using material evidence is simply out of the question.
That given, there are two approaches you can take…
Most people who claim that Jesus did not exist will use the first one. Weigh the veracity of the anecdotal claims against other wholly subjective anecdotal claims that have as their claim to veracity, grater contemporary corroboration. There are quite a few problems with this approach that I feel are apparent, including the fact that you are simply weighing subjective evidence vs. subjective evidence and the dearth of contemporary history in Jesus’ time.
Corroborating evidence does not make a claim fact.
If it did, one could simply point to the fact that there exists an estimated 2 billion Christians, it is the basic belief of the Muslim religion that Jesus existed and was a prophet of God, many Jews believe that Jesus existed, but simply was not the prophesied savior and countless other people believe that Jesus existed, but simply do not worship him. With even a conservative estimate, likely half the world’s population believes that Jesus did exist. If corroboration of anecdotal evidence determined fact, one could simply point at the more that three billion people who believe he did exist and rest one’s case.
The second approach, I believe is the more pragmatic, therefore scientific, approach.
How can you look at the question pragmatically and objectively? You look at the results of his existence and how that would change if his existence was false.
Given that you cannot disprove the existence of Jesus, there is no need to look at what may happen if someone disproved that he existed, because it simply cannot happen. So, looking at the world today, with all the people that believe that he did exist, what would change if that belief was not based in reality?
Exactly what would happen if it WAS based in reality.
Exactly what would happen if Napoleon never existed, and he was just a product of French propaganda.
Nothing at all.
What would it change? People will still believe he existed. His image would have the same exact impact it does today. He exists as a collective memory right now. He exists as a force within our cultures right now. People’s belief in him right now, has the exact same effect as if he really did exist.
As someone who values little more than truth, this is something that is quite difficult for me to admit and accept, but like it or not, for better or for worse, collective belief DOES determine reality.
Jesus exists in people’s minds because people believe in him, and if that belief is not based on reality at all (which is simply improvable) it makes no difference whatsoever.
And there is nothing you can do about it.
I have been following this thread, but not religiously, so forgive me of someone already brought this perspective and I missed it.
A scientific approach to the Jesus question would be remiss without looking at the purpose of science and discovery.
What is the main goal and purpose of science? To observe phenomena and their interactions with each other with the end result of discerning the results of those interactions to gather knowledge that can be used to accurately predict the outcome of said interactions under controlled situations. We gather knowledge in order to use that knowledge to our advantage. Science, then, is wholly pragmatic in its endeavors - it is only interested in results.
History - whether you are discussing rumors of a God-man 2000 years ago, governmental propaganda from World War II or the CNN news broadcast last night – relies almost entirely on anecdotal evidence.
Science, on the other hand, all but rejects anecdotal evidence, due to the fact that it cannot be independently and objectively verified. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence often completely undermines the whole concept of a controlled environment. Finally, anecdotal evidence, by its very nature, is wholly subjective, therefore generally considered fairly useless.
This, along with the scientific tenet that you cannot prove a negative, virtually guarantees that there is no way to prove that Jesus did not exist. Using material evidence is simply out of the question.
That given, there are two approaches you can take…
Most people who claim that Jesus did not exist will use the first one. Weigh the veracity of the anecdotal claims against other wholly subjective anecdotal claims that have as their claim to veracity, grater contemporary corroboration. There are quite a few problems with this approach that I feel are apparent, including the fact that you are simply weighing subjective evidence vs. subjective evidence and the dearth of contemporary history in Jesus’ time.
Corroborating evidence does not make a claim fact.
If it did, one could simply point to the fact that there exists an estimated 2 billion Christians, it is the basic belief of the Muslim religion that Jesus existed and was a prophet of God, many Jews believe that Jesus existed, but simply was not the prophesied savior and countless other people believe that Jesus existed, but simply do not worship him. With even a conservative estimate, likely half the world’s population believes that Jesus did exist. If corroboration of anecdotal evidence determined fact, one could simply point at the more that three billion people who believe he did exist and rest one’s case.
The second approach, I believe is the more pragmatic, therefore scientific, approach.
How can you look at the question pragmatically and objectively? You look at the results of his existence and how that would change if his existence was false.
Given that you cannot disprove the existence of Jesus, there is no need to look at what may happen if someone disproved that he existed, because it simply cannot happen. So, looking at the world today, with all the people that believe that he did exist, what would change if that belief was not based in reality?
Exactly what would happen if it WAS based in reality.
Exactly what would happen if Napoleon never existed, and he was just a product of French propaganda.
Nothing at all.
What would it change? People will still believe he existed. His image would have the same exact impact it does today. He exists as a collective memory right now. He exists as a force within our cultures right now. People’s belief in him right now, has the exact same effect as if he really did exist.
As someone who values little more than truth, this is something that is quite difficult for me to admit and accept, but like it or not, for better or for worse, collective belief DOES determine reality.
Jesus exists in people’s minds because people believe in him, and if that belief is not based on reality at all (which is simply improvable) it makes no difference whatsoever.
And there is nothing you can do about it.
rubbish, so the tooth fairy, santa, the easter bunny, etc etc, all are objectively real?.one raven said:
how can something, that relies on faith alone, be deemed as real.
it should read "collective belief DOES determine subjective reality"
we are educated, so we are able to evaluate the truth, it will only be a matter of time for this collective ( and it's not a memory it's an imaging induced by indoctrination) imaging, to be eradicated.
whether you believe it does not matter or not, it does if those that believe it,, are holding back or damaging humanity, because of it.
That's not at all what I said.pavlosmarcos said:
Did you read my whole post?
If so, why not respond to my post and what I said in context.
What I said, is that if you want to take the "Scientific Approach" then you, like science, should only be interested in the pragmatic aspect of the question.
When you do that, you do not determine whether something was "objectively real", as you mistakenly apply to my reasoning, rather you determine that it does not matter whether or not something had objectively existed in the past, rather it matters if the effect of that belief will be different if the "objective reality" was not as it is.
Whether or not he existed is of little to no consequence, because the effect of people that believe in him now will not change one bit if he did or did not.
It is not the "objective existence" of his existence that is important.
It simply does not matter, because it will make no difference either way.
It is a moot question.
His influence exists by virtue of more than half the world's population believing that he did exist at one time and most of the rest of the people not denying that assertion. The people who actually take issue with the belief that he existed is quite a small minority.
The results of that widespread, nearly universal belief is what matters, not whether that belief is based on "objective reality", especially when it is based on an improvable contention.
THAT is the proper "Scientific Approach" to the question proposed.
I hope I made my point more clearly this time, and remedied your confusion.
If you disagree with this, please explain why and show me where my reasoning went wrong.
Cris said:
Cool. I used to work for IBM's R&D and Lexmark's P/A. I've benchmarked some of your printers.
You wouldn't hire me, but then again I don't want to work there. It's all going to china anyway.
Besides that, I would not wish to work for an atheist manager. More than half the managers I've had are regular in church. They just seem to be a lot more civil to other people. I hate an environment where people can't be civil -- absolutely hate it. We've had some problems with that at my current employer and I think they like me more than I like them.
We just had manager training at my current employer, and the largest single factor that influences a person's job satisfaction is how they work with their manager. I agree 100%.
Last edited:
So you admit it takes practice for you to be capable of reasoned thought?Cris said:
Most people are born with the capability.
One single example?Cris said:
Ok, One example of creation....you.
As W.C. Fields once said; "Theres a sucker born every day"
There you are.
Cause and effect.Cris said:
I made you do something by the way I used my words.
You couldn't stop yourself, I asked you not to respond but you had to....from some deep seated uncontrolable urge to mess up what would have otherwise given you a logical, rational grasp on the order of things.Cris said:
Thats what I'm trying to show you.Cris said:
Under the surface lies the motivating energy of our thoughts and desires, and there is where your "nonexistant gods" control you and everyone else who still believes they are nonexistant.
Don't they say in A.A., The first step is admiting you have got a problem.
Until you admit there is a problem, you can't address it.Cris said:
From you these unseen "nonexistant" forces have absolutly no resistance.
They have convinced you they don't exisit.
Its all very funny till somebody gets hurt.Cris said:
Its this very thing that causes the pain and suffering in the world, not belief in the creator of the universe.Cris said:
Yes they have influenced the world's religions.....forget relying upon them.
The god of heaven destroyed these forces from heaven and now its your turn to push them out of your life, and this world.
Open your eyes to whats been really controling things in this world and be someone to stand up and make a difference.
We are more than able to do it.
Last edited:
Cris said:
Substantiate.
1) wisdom, sound knowledge, success, sound/efficient wisdom, abiding
success
1a) sound/efficient wisdom
1b) abiding success (of the effect of sound wisdom)
The abiding success of sound, efficient wisdom.
The truth will stand the test of time.
So look around you, and observe what has stood the "test of time"
That which was laid out with deliberate care upon a solid foundation.
Nothing that just happens of itself, or comes about by accident lasts long.
This world was created and destroyed by the one that spoke it into existence.
Your body is a type of the world, made up of the same sixteen elements.
Will you be destroyed for lack of understanding sound efficient wisdom?
Everything exists to teach you this truth.
Nature was created as a teaching tool, the trees, the wind, the rivers and the sea...they all speak volumes, if you have eyes to see...
Spiritual eyes.
If you don't, there is nothing I can tell you either.
One Raven,one_raven said:
You have brought up a really good point.
I for one believe He did exist, but laying that aside for a moment I want to comment on your observation here.
"collective belief DOES determine reality".
The fact that many people believe a certain thing does sway their collective behavior and thereby determine reality not only just to them, but also affecting all those they interact with.
This doesn't even take into consideration of the ability of human's to create from their imagination.
If you can see it, you can be it.
The dormant abilities that exist in the 90% unused portion of the human brain is really yet unexplored, but back to the Bible as a reference, it said we were made in the image of God.
This may mean man, as he was created originally also had this creative power.
Take Peter, according to the Bible even before he was converted, he saw Jesus walking on the water and after asking if He could do the same....a man like us today, no different, walked on the water also.
Jesus said if you believe, without any doubt in your heart, you could have anything you asked for even the moving of a mountain.
To believe from your heart without any doubt, is tapping into a creative power of God.
Another example of someone who has thought of this possibility is the writers for Stargate SG1.
If any of you watch the T.V.show Stargate SG1, they recently had an episode where they claimed a group of religious "wannabes" that were some kind of ascended bad guys, the Ori...., received power from the masses that they could deceive into worshiping them as gods, from the power of the peoples belief in them.
Now that a TV show had an episode about something doesn't make it true, of course not....(I don't even want to hear about it
) but that does point out it is something on people's minds.So....""collective belief DOES determine reality". is true in more way than we may realize, even if the last case remains in the realms of fiction.
I thought your whole post on this subject One Raven, was very clear and well thought out.
Good one.
Last edited:
Yes, I know they now say the 10% theory is just a "myth", but there is no evidence to the contrary, and I side with the ones on your site posted that say even if an MRI or CAT scan can show the majority of a persons brain active from time to time, there is still the conscious vs sub-conscious aspect.
The conscious is just the surface of a vast ocean the sub-conscoius, that contains all we have ever seen, heard, thought or imagined...not to mention contact with other spirits, the mind of God, and through that, the ability to transend the temporary "now" contacted with our five senses and see the past, all thats in the present, and the future.....the omniscient quality of the mind of God, who's image we were created in.
This is why the protective wall between the conscious and sub-conscious was placed there I believe by God, and it is not possibly to access and hold in the conscious mind all this knowledge at one time by any normal person.
Its like the hard drive on a computer, networking and the internet, the conscious is like the Ram memory that has to be booted up every time the computer is turned on vs the hard drive memory.
What is the usual ratio between those two?
100 to 1 or even 1000 to 1?
In that perspective we probably use far less than the 10 %.
I'll side with those who still hold to the 10% "myth".
The conscious is just the surface of a vast ocean the sub-conscoius, that contains all we have ever seen, heard, thought or imagined...not to mention contact with other spirits, the mind of God, and through that, the ability to transend the temporary "now" contacted with our five senses and see the past, all thats in the present, and the future.....the omniscient quality of the mind of God, who's image we were created in.
This is why the protective wall between the conscious and sub-conscious was placed there I believe by God, and it is not possibly to access and hold in the conscious mind all this knowledge at one time by any normal person.
Its like the hard drive on a computer, networking and the internet, the conscious is like the Ram memory that has to be booted up every time the computer is turned on vs the hard drive memory.
What is the usual ratio between those two?
100 to 1 or even 1000 to 1?
In that perspective we probably use far less than the 10 %.
I'll side with those who still hold to the 10% "myth".
Last edited: