Comment on Is there any real physical proof that Jesus christ ever existed?

• Tryptaminev@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Again you are making an assumption as the base of your logical construct.

  That assumption is that the “laws of physics” are absolute in the sense that you know them. This is already problematic from a scientific point of view because our understanding of what the “laws of physics” are were and are under a constant change.

  The scriptures are based on the axiom that god created everything including the laws of physics so when he chooses to, these laws can be defied. You can disagree with that axiom, but that does not mean that the logic is inconsistent.

  So if you want to be honest your argument is “I don’t believe the scriptures, so i don’t believe in Jesus” which is perfectly valid, but very different from “I know Jesus is impossible and i can prove it.”

  Maybe to make an example in science to wrap it all together. Before the invention of microscopes some doctors theorized about bacteria and viruses as the source of diseases. They often got ridiculed as “some invisible animals making us sick? Yeah you drank too much wine again” . Then the telescope came about and it could be seen what used to be unseeable for humans. Nowadays if you would claim there to be no bacteria you’d be rightfully ridiculed. But we also saw in human history that knowledge got lost and things that were established knowledge became bold theories subject to ridicule again.

  So being honest to science and human knowledge the valid position is “I don’t believe in Jesus like described in the bible, as it is inconsistent with what i can observe today, but i have no proof in either direction.”

  source

  • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    No, I am assuming that a book written in the iron age was written by people with no knowledge of physics and I am also assuming, like every other iron age religious text, there’s no need to accept it as truth.

    Your whole “you can’t prove it isn’t true” argument is not how anything works. The burden of proof is on the claimant. In this case, my claim is I have no reason to believe any of it is true based on modern physics. And telling me I can’t assume that the laws of physics work all the time doesn’t really compel me to think otherwise since I’ve never seen any modern documented account of the laws of physics not working.

    If your god wants me to believe he exists, he knows what he can do about it. I guess he’s fine not providing a shred of evidence he exists outside of an iron age book, which means I’m fine assuming he doesn’t exist.

    source

    • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      was written by people with no knowledge of physics

      So why would they write about it and describe it as wonders? Do you think they did not understand that walking on water, giving life to the death, curing diseases on the spot and other things ascribed to Jesus as wonders were defying the conventional laws of nature?

      The burden of proof is on the claimant.

      Exactly. You claim to know that Jesus as described in the bible is an impossibility. So you have to proof that. All i want you to acknowledge, is that you are making an assumption, not providing proven knowledge.

      And telling me I can’t assume that the laws of physics work all the time doesn’t really compel me to think otherwise since I’ve never seen any modern documented account of the laws of physics not working.

      Ever heard of modern Physics? Relativity theory? Relativistic effects? All of these are the results of observations in defiance of classical Newtonian physics. There is an ongoing revolution in physics since a hundred years because we keep observing things inconsistent with our prior assumptions about the laws of physics.

      source

      • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        So why would they write about it and describe it as wonders?

        The same reason the authors of the Vedas, the Quran, the Book of Mormon and any other religious text you’d like to mention. I assume you don’t think Vishnu is a god as well as your god. I look forward to the special pleading of why the “wonders” of the Bible are true and the “wonders” of the Trials of Hercules are not though.

        Also, you’re “ever heard of” thing doesn’t change the fact that there is not a single documented account of the laws of physics not working. You are describing things being more complicated than was thought, not things not working.

        But feel free to show me video of a modern-day miracle your god is responsible for. You know as well as I do that there is no such thing, but I’m sure you’ve got some amusing excuse for why your omnipotent god no longer performs those miracles of his.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Mjpasta710@midwest.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Science is about testable repeatable actions and concepts. Science describes what can be observed.

        What can be observed and tested in your claims?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • MagicShel@programming.dev ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The Bible is a bunch of self-contradictory folk-tales. Which makes it useless in knowing any real Jesus. So, while one cannot say historical Jesus absolutely didn’t exist, one cannot cite the Bible as a credible source of any knowledge about him. One might as well contemplate historical Hercules.

    source

    • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Did i ever cite the bible as that? I also think the bible has many inconsistencies and looking at concepts like trinity or Jesus as literal son of god being introduced hundreds of years later, are things i also disagree with.

      But i understand that theological differences are something different from scientific differences. And i think it is important to separate the two.

      Because scientific differences can be analyzed with repeatable tests and empirical evidence. Theological differences are either a simple matter of different faith or they can only be discussed in whether the theology is consistent in itself. But that again relies on certain axioms, like math relies on certain axioms or many social sciences need to use axioms because of the complexity of empirical information.

      source
  • littlecolt@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It sure is convenient that they omnipotent and wise God decided to send his son to earth and perform wonders to prove he is the messenger of God long before humanity had advanced enough to create better records and spread that truth. I wonder why God has not wisely re-upped on this, given technological advancement, which God should be pretty caught up on.

    source

    • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      You make good points. May i introduce you to Islam?

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_in_Islam

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran

      The final prophet Mohammed s.a.s. whose life and effect are well documented as well as the direct word of Allah s.w.t., preserved as original in the Arabic language of revelation in the Quran. You should not though that according to Islam Jesus was merely a human messenger as Allah neither was born nor gives birth. In the same wake Allah is one and not three. But these concepts were added by the church to the Christian theology four hundred years after the life of Jesus.

      source

      • littlecolt@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I appreciate your confidence.

        source
  • Mjpasta710@midwest.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    You’re making an incorrect assumption that says the burden of proof is not yours. I’m not making absurd claims about things that defy all logic and physical limits.

    You are. The burden is on you.

    Your invisible helper cannot carry this burden for you.

    …m.wikipedia.org/…/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

    source

    • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position.

      Flying Squid said it is impossible what is described in the bible. So he or you if you take his side are the one burdened with proof. In fact the bible provides a very straightforward reasoning. Jesus was granted the power to do wonders by God so people would recognize him as a messenger of God and listen to him spreading the message of God.

      You can say you dont believe in that. But it is not a proof of it not having happened. Especially as a lot of people who lived at the time said otherwise.

      source

      • Mjpasta710@midwest.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        If it’s possible, reproduce the claims. Until you can produce evidence of something, they are unfounded claims.

        The Heaven’s Gate cult wrote things down and had a whole group of folks that would confirm the beliefs they had.

        According to you, the burden of proof is on society.

        So I challenge you in the same way you’re attempting here.

        Prove the Heaven’s Gate cult wrong. They made very reasonable claims(according to them) and it’s up to you to prove them wrong.

        That’s what you are doing. Until you can prove someone is able to do the things in your text(s). It’s a fable. You’re still arguing in bad faith.

        New topic: provide your initial rules and conditions for entering responses.

        source