You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Entropy vs Christ (A scientific basis for Jesus Christ Part II)
Religion is a hypothesis. It's only an speculation. It does not answer "why". To assume that you have dealt with "why" means you have formed a conclusion. To form a conclusion you would have had to examine the facts and test them. Christ as a historical figure probably existed and was probably a real human being. Our ignorant human mind has glorified this name towards fantasy and madness.
Why do you say "probably" to his existence and "improbably" to his deity?
It is the same set of historical eyewitness accounts that attest to both.
As to deity... lots of people have been considered deity's and super beings since the time of christ. Why not believe those eyewitness accounts? Eyewitness accounts are meaningless when it comes to science. That doesn't mean they have no value, it just means you can only apply the scientific method to something you can collect data on, perform tests, and replicate. Not likely to happen without a time machine. Thus, why I keep saying science is not going to be able to prove or disprove anything. Science is a tool, not a belief system. In this case it is a tool that has insufficient data to use.
I guess I'm not being clear. Science has nothing to do with it and I'm not trying to shoehorn this into pseudoscience. Eyewitness accounts are valid ways to gain knowledge outside of science. You have to decide whether they are credible, true, but if they are credible then you can know things science can never tell you.
Of course, science can help you assess credibility by determining the authenticity, age, and origin of certain documents. Once you have determined that a document is what it claims to be, then it is up to human judgement to assess the credibility of what is written there.
I never said you couldn't know things that science doesn't tell you. NOT ONCE.
I simply stated that science cannot PROVE or DISPROVE the existence of Jesus, or God.
At least with the data available. It may be possible this will always be true.
I did not say Jesus does not exist, or God. Not a single time.
@gavvet is talking about science and religion and specifically science proving Jesus.
It does not, and cannot unless it has data, can experiment, and can replicate. Replicating in some form of simulation will move it into a THEORY instead of just being a hypothesis.
Oh, right! I agree with that.
(I was talking about a European swallow, not an African swallow, that's my point...)
:o)