More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-02-2017, 09:42 AM
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(24-02-2017 09:35 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Do you believe historians, and people in general can logically conclude that Jesus existed, as folks like Ehrman and other's conclude, even if they may be wrong in that conclusion?

Yes, I was waiting for Ehrman. Folks like you always come up with him. Look up his qualifications. He's a theologian not a historian.

People can believe all kinds of stuff. As I said, there is no scientific evidence for or against Jesus. Outside of that realm it's believe and doesn't warrant the comparison to Julius Cesar.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like abaris's post
24-02-2017, 09:45 AM
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(24-02-2017 09:35 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Do you believe historians, and people in general can logically conclude that Jesus existed, as folks like Ehrman and other's conclude, even if they may be wrong in that conclusion?

Some do. Some don't. "People in general" is the ad populum argument.

Ehrman concludes he did. Carrier concludes he didn't.
Tomato is unqualified to speak on the subject, at all.

The supporting evidence Tomato puts forth is not accepted by billions of his fellow Christians and their experts.

Scientific evidence and historical methods are two entirely different things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
24-02-2017, 09:48 AM
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(24-02-2017 09:42 AM)abaris Wrote:  Yes, I was waiting for Ehrman. Folks like you always come up with him. Look up his qualifications. He's a theologian not a historian.

If they can draw logical conclusion, the data/information, they draw the logical conclusion from, constitute as evidence by definition.

If all evidence is scientific evidence, then such evidence would also be scientific evidence. Unless you want to go back and draw a line between some forms of evidence, and other forms you qualify as "scientific".

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2017, 09:53 AM
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(24-02-2017 09:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If they can draw logical conclusion, the data/information, they draw the logical conclusion from, constitute as evidence by definition.

Totally wrong. There are many perfectly correct logical systems which do not obtain in Reality.

Quote:If all evidence is scientific evidence, then such evidence would also be scientific evidence.

Facepalm

A meaningless tautology. Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
24-02-2017, 09:54 AM
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(24-02-2017 09:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If all evidence is scientific evidence, then such evidence would also be scientific evidence. Unless you want to go back and drawn a line between some forms of evidence, and other forms you qualify as "scientific".

Bingo.

You're incapable to draw the line between scientific evidence, theory, based on logic, and hearsay.

Belief isn't evidence, forming a logical chain isn't evidence. It merely begs for scientific confirmation, if possible. Otherwise it's discarded.

And all that in comparison to Julius Cesar? Are you really that dense to not see the diffeerence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes abaris's post
24-02-2017, 09:54 AM
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(24-02-2017 09:45 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Scientific evidence and historical methods are two entirely different things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

If they're different methodologies, then do you agree historical evidence, and scientific evidence, are not necessarily synonymous, as you buddy Abaris wants to suggest.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2017, 09:56 AM
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(24-02-2017 09:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-02-2017 09:42 AM)abaris Wrote:  Yes, I was waiting for Ehrman. Folks like you always come up with him. Look up his qualifications. He's a theologian not a historian.

If they can draw logical conclusion, the data/information, they draw the logical conclusion from, constitute as evidence by definition.

If all evidence is scientific evidence, then such evidence would also be scientific evidence. Unless you want to go back and draw a line between some forms of evidence, and other forms you qualify as "scientific".

One does not "draw data or information" in logic.
Tomato has not the slightest clue what he's talking about.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
24-02-2017, 09:58 AM
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(24-02-2017 09:54 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If they're different methodologies, then do you agree historical evidence, and scientific evidence, are not necessarily synonymous, as you buddy Abaris wants to suggest.

Weren't we already over this?

Quote:Source criticism (or information evaluation) is the process of evaluating the qualities of an information source, such as its validity, reliability, and relevance to the subject under investigation.

Gilbert J Garraghan divides source criticism into six inquiries:[1]

When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
Where was it produced (localization)?
By whom was it produced (authorship)?
From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
In what original form was it produced (integrity)?
What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?

What do you think methodology is? Hint, it's not any different than other scientific methods, since it also relies on what can be proven.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes abaris's post
24-02-2017, 10:02 AM
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(24-02-2017 09:54 AM)abaris Wrote:  Belief isn't evidence, forming a logical chain isn't evidence. It merely begs for scientific confirmation, if possible. Otherwise it's discarded.

If you can draw logic conclusions, what ever data and information that you where able to draw that from, constitute as evidence. It may not be proof, but it is evidence, by the very fact that a logical conclusion is drawn by them. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand the meaning of evidence, and likely have a contradictory incoherent idea of it in mind.

Quote:And all that in comparison to Julius Cesar? Are you really that dense to not see the diffeerence?

No, the evidence for Julius Cesar and Jesus are not equivalent. So you can shove your strawman up your ass.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2017, 10:08 AM (This post was last modified: 24-02-2017 10:11 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(24-02-2017 10:02 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, the evidence for Julius Cesar and Jesus are not equivalent. So you can shove your strawman up your ass.

Exactly.
There is FAR FAR better evidence for Caesar than Jesus.
It's also not a strawman.

Tomato has gone off the rails.

Premise: all horses are brown
Premise: X is a horse
Conclusion: from premise 1 and 2 follows that X is brown
However, suppose that X in fact isn't brown, but white (meaning that either X isn't a horse - premise 2 is false -, or not all horses are brown - premise 1 is false).

The reasoning leading to the conclusion is logically valid, it's a valid reasoning, but the conclusion is not true, because we started with false premises.
Tomato's Fake University never made him take Logic.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: