Evidence for God from Science

I often hear people say that the bible has been changed, modified, etc.... purposely so that the church can fulfill its "agenda".

I have no answer to this because I have no clue if this is true, a fact or not. Many would agree that this is true but most believe it is not. I believe it is not because, just like the Davinci Code which has been taken apart completely, even on CNN today as a downright lie (about time isn't it). The Davinci Code is one example that shows how people want to use information that does not coincide with even history itself.

On CNN today, supposebly, a man in Italy has found that the church made up the bible or some scriptures about jesus. He claims that jesus didn't even exist at all. He says he has proof that this is a fact. He is taking this to court and his lawyer says that if the church cannot prove the existence of Jesus, than Christianity is going another step further back. Anyone can look this up, it was broadcasted today on CNN.

Just to add, his facts are nowhere near facts, he just claims he has facts, just like Dan Brown has in the Davinci Code. Its also a fact that Dan Brown is a christian like he says he is

A guy claims to have proof Jesus didnt exists??



Do you know exactly what "facts" or arguments he was using to back up his claims? There are many articles written in defense of Jesus' existence (and authenticity of scriptures) counter to claims made by critics such as this man. A few of them can be found here:

http://www.tektonics.org/

And here's a good article on the same site covering Jesus' existence:

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

no, unfortunetely, there was no precise answer as to what facts he was presenting. I missed a bit of it, that maybe the reason why. But I don't think CNN stated what exactly the facts were. However, they mentioned that there will be a trial, from the trial, all the "facts" will be "revealed".

As far as I know the court threw out the case?

godslanguage wrote:I often hear people say that the bible has been changed, modified, etc.... purposely so that the church can fulfill its "agenda".

I have no answer to this because I have no clue if this is true, a fact or not. Many would agree that this is true but most believe it is not. I believe it is not because, just like the Davinci Code which has been taken apart completely, even on CNN today as a downright lie (about time isn't it). The Davinci Code is one example that shows how people want to use information that does not coincide with even history itself.

On CNN today, supposebly, a man in Italy has found that the church made up the bible or some scriptures about jesus. He claims that jesus didn't even exist at all. He says he has proof that this is a fact. He is taking this to court and his lawyer says that if the church cannot prove the existence of Jesus, than Christianity is going another step further back. Anyone can look this up, it was broadcasted today on CNN.

Just to add, his facts are nowhere near facts, he just claims he has facts, just like Dan Brown has in the Davinci Code. Its also a fact that Dan Brown is a christian like he says he is

Can you provide a link to this story?

I tried looking for it on CNN website, but I can't find it. On TV, CNN was broadcasting "Breaking The Davinci Code" and during this segment they brought this case up.

lol

Probably just a side note, wacky things happen all the time.

One would be hard pressed to "prove" Jesus didn't exist.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:lol

Probably just a side note, wacky things happen all the time.

One would be hard pressed to "prove" Jesus didn't exist.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You cannot prove a negative.

The historical data that Jesus existed and walked this earth is as strong or stronger than many such historical figures from contemporary times that are accepted without much question by those few who try to question the existence of a Historical Jesus.

That does not prove the claims of Christ or historic Christianity outside of His simple existence by itself.

But proving the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth and his impact upon the history of 1st Century Palestine is not particularly hard as the New Testament documents themselves are historical attestations, and there are contemporary extra-biblical references as well.

Canuckster1127 wrote:You cannot prove a negative.

LOL, I always get my knickers in a bunch when I see that. Here is why, can you prove that statement to be true?

August wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:You cannot prove a negative.

LOL, I always get my knickers in a bunch when I see that. Here is why, can you prove that statement to be true?

What do you mean, the actual statement?

August wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:You cannot prove a negative.

LOL, I always get my knickers in a bunch when I see that. Here is why, can you prove that statement to be true?

Yup. There is a seeming contradiction brought about by the absolute terminology isn't there?

Would you prefer:

A. You cannot prove a negative .... except for this one.

B. A negative, cannot affirmatively be argued by nature of its universal scope.

C. You say that again and I'll set your terminology on its head, buster!

Or pick something of your own.

We can't have wadded-up knickers littering the landscape .....

Canuckster1127 wrote:

August wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:You cannot prove a negative.

LOL, I always get my knickers in a bunch when I see that. Here is why, can you prove that statement to be true?

Yup. There is a seeming contradiction brought about by the absolute terminology isn't there?

Would you prefer:

A. You cannot prove a negative .... except for this one.

B. A negative, cannot affirmatively be argued by nature of its universal scope.

C. You say that again and I'll set your terminology on its head, buster!

Or pick something of your own.

We can't have wadded-up knickers littering the landscape .....

It's a self-defeating statement, since the moment you attempt to prove it true you have essentially proven a negative. Adding qualifiers does not really solve the problem, you still have quite the conundrum.

I guess the best statement is: Only affirmatives can be proven. Of course you would have to provide a proof for that statement too, without being circular.

The phrase "you can't prove a negative" is actually a distortion of another idea. It is trying to put into laymans terms the idea of human limitation and it's impact on inductive conclusions.

Any statement can be proven, be it right or wrong, theoretically speaking of course. (The exception being nonsensical statements, that's for you August)

The theory of gravity for instances assumes that the laws of gravity are the same everywhere.
But we can't prove this, unless we actually inspect every location and verify that gravity is universal.

As you can see it's not always a negative which falls into this category.

It would seem that all such theories and ideas which are universal in scope fall under these limatations.

This is why we must always be aware that even given a large body of evidence there is always a chance it could be wrong.

And in the reverse case even given the paucity of evidence there is always the possibility that it could be true.

So we can say that there is no lifeform which can tolerate the temperatures found on the surface of the sun. But we must always be willing to examine any new evidence which may prove that wrong.

So is it really true that any statement can be logically proven? Can you logically prove that your senses are reliable without being circular, or do some statements have to be axiomatically accepted, without being proven?

August wrote:So is it really true that any statement can be logically proven? Can you logically prove that your senses are reliable without being circular, or do some statements have to be axiomatically accepted, without being proven?

Theoretically, yes.

In practice of course definitions and foundational axioms must be agreed upon in order to do any sort of logical reasoning or have any form of communication. We are not purely mental omnicient omnipresent entities.

But dwelling to much on those issues will take you away from any real progress.

But if you wish to prove that is really means what is is then, that is what it is.