Your first sentence blows the rest of your argument out of the water. I still maintain that the truth about the physical world is knowable (to an extent), but truth about the supernatural isn't knowable=================
You put a limitation on truth by using the phrase (to an extent). Am I correct in my assessment? If so then where lies the problem? Is the problem with the determination of what reality is? Is reality subject to interpretation?
As for Jesus existing, those who doubt his very existence are in the minority. There is no evidence to suggest he was not a real person.______________________There's no evidence to suggest that JC was more than a regular person living in the middle-east. Remeber that the bible is not a credible source as much as you want it to be.
Actually there are a number of scholars who believe that Jesus is really a composite of legends and people. We do know that the early church tweaked what is now the bible, to work in line ancient Hebrew messiah predicitions.
Also, he's not referenced in a lot of places one would think he should be. Outside of the Bible, which as you say means little in that regard, any reference to him is very sketchy. It indicates that he either never existed as one actual person, or he wasn't so important at the time.
As far as him being a diety himself, I have no reason to believe that. If he created such miracles, surely he and the miracles would be mentioned somewhere else. Instead, it seems more logical that the story grew with time. We know that the texts of the new testament about Jesus were written many years after his death. Imagine how much a story grows at the water cooler in the corporate office between morning coffee and lunch. Make it about 40 years, and add religiously fervent people, completely ignorant by today's standards. To my logical brain, that's the more likely explanation for the 'divinity' of Jesus.
Again, this is a physical reality that can be tested.================
Question, within the realm of science are there theories, or scientific evidence that one must believe based on faith, because they can't be tested today but perhaps at some time in the past they could be? To clarify a bit I am thinking of the suggestion of the beginning of life as suggested by scientist who say the first life form was a result of meteorites bombarding the water covered earth.
P.S. A link on the historical record. http://www.i4m.com/think/bible/historical_jesus.htm
It's my personal opinion that it is very likely that some sort of wandering preacher existed named Jesus who grew into something much bigger with a lot of other legends blended in.
But he apparently didn't cause much of a stir out of a small band, until the church got it's story together and got institutionalized and made powerful.
No. Faith is belief without evidence. There is evidence regarding the various abiogenesis theories put forth by scientists - just not enough at this point to determine which one is right. I'm not sure that question will ever be answered with certainty.
BTW, meteor impact is just one of many possible theories for how life started. For my part, I think that life is the rule rather than the exception, and forms where ever conditions are right.
There is no evidence to suggest he [Jesus] was not a real person.
That is nonsense. What evidence is there of any person's non-existence? There is either evidence for existence or a lack thereof.
Faith is belief without evidence. There is evidence regarding the various abiogenesis theories put forth by scientists - just not enough at this point to determine which one is right. I'm not sure that question will ever be answered with certainty.============
Let me ask then, have you seen all the evidence which supports all the scientific findings. The answer is obviously no. So when you read about a certain discovery without seeing the actual evidence, don't you have to believe and thus have faith in the presentation that the paper stating such a discovery is a reality?
The primary source of scientific studies are peer reviewed. Do you know what "peer reviewed" means? It means that many different people are looking at the evidence, reviewing it and pointing out strengths or weaknesses.
Did I personally go out and do lab experiments? No. But if 20 other independent people did (most of whom are competing with each other and would love to prove the others wrong), and they all come up with the same evidence....... call it what you will, but I don't call accepting that information "faith".
BTW, you should always take what you read in the news about scientific discoveries with a grain of salt. You should go to the primary source of information. News organizations tend to sensationalize findings or imply significance that just isn't there because they are in the business of selling news.
BTW, you should always take what you read in the news about scientific discoveries with a grain of salt. You should go to the primary source of information. News organizations tend to sensationalize findings or imply significance that just isn't there because they are in the business of selling news.============
Would the same apply to those who don't particularly like a certain well know pastor, and find another who agrees with you and post that as a worthy link to read, even though the poster has no clue as to what to information contained there in was accurate or even relevant?
But if 20 other independent people did (most of whom are competing with each other and would love to prove the others wrong), and they all come up with the same evidence.==
I understand the process and so if the 20 witnesses agree, the discovery is valid. So what if there were 500 witnesses to a super natural event, and there wasn't any toadstools around, would that be enough to get you to believe that this supernatural event actually happened, even though the event was a near impossibility?