Nope. Theories are not knowledge. They are explanatory arguments.
Nope. It is an explanatory argument.
Nope. It is an explanatory argument.
Knowledge has not True or False. It simply is.
Knowledge is not provisional. It simply is. It does not have to be justified by anything.
But there are eyewitnesses.
Correction: The 2nd century Roman historian Tacitus wrote of the legend of the execution of Jesus, more than a century after the supposed event.
Correction: Iraneus and Papias wrote how they "knew a guy who knew a guy" ... who knew the apostles or of their work. The inescapable problem is that these are the closest anyone can get to documentation of the life of Jesus, and all of it is an admission to being second-hand accounts of second-hand accounts, as well as being made a century too late.
You are chanting. There are first-hand accounts, and I listed several of them for you.
Well put. An hypothesis is derived from a theory, and the null hypothesis is effectively the theory or model itself.
You have to include the "if the events actually happened as I believe ...". Of course, if the events happened then every signle witness was a witness.
I wish you would just embrace your scientific illiteracy and be happy with who you are instead of being desperate to be someone you're not.
Nope. First, the theory is developed. Then the theory is tested by 1) deriving hypotheses and 2) attempting to falsify the hypotheses.
If you are trying to express "not the same as" (≠), it is correctly written "<>".
116 AD is not "more than a century" after the crucifixion of Jesus. That's only 85 years after Jesus was executed, and the Roman historian Tacitus would have had access to more sources and information about Jesus and Pontuis Pilate than we have today.
It's remarkable how much frantic Google research I compel you to do.
www.britannica.com
@Cypress, the hypothesis is the starting point in the scientific method ... except that checking the theory's internal and external consistency comes before checking any of its derived hypotheses. The hypothesis is derived from the theory, which obviously must come first or you don't have any hypotheses that are derived from the theory.
I think it was written later, but even if we go by your 85-year figure, that's still too far afterwards to be dealing with any first-hand accounting. In fact, everything from Tacitus was less credible than hearsay.
Keep chanting. I'm not going to waste my time repeating what I already posted for you.
Jesus is not mentioned in any history book.
Now you are asking people to believe that you speak for dead people. You do not.
There are eyewitness for all of Sathya Sai Baba's BS "miracles". Do you believe he's actually performing miracles?
That's the wrong standard to use.
We're talking about a completely different period in time. It was a time when men regularly believed in nonsensical things.
The question is whether or not the witness accounts were accurate. Given that none of the Books of the New Testament were actually written by eyewitnesses, there's no reason to put a lot of importance on the stories.... because they are just stories.
A seedy reputation to some, sure. A million of his followers showed up to his birthday party several years ago.
Which is fine, but also has nothing to do with the stories/claims about him.
Based on the anyonymous stories, written by people who never met Jesus.. sure?
ok.
I already did. Go back and read it.
Nope. Redefinition fallacy. History is simply the narrative itself. 'Eyewitness' is not required.
Never said it did.
It is documented.
Define 'rigor'.
What 'first documentation'?
Attempted proof by ignorance.
A hypothesis stems from a theory, not a theory from a hypothesis. Reversal fallacy.Encyclopedia Britannica:
"A hypothesis is a starting point in the scientific method, where it is tested through observation and experimentation...a hypothesis is a testable prediction or explanation."
Theory vs. Hypothesis: What’s the Difference? | Examples, Science, Definition, Fact, & Prediction | Britannica
A scientific theory and a hypothesis differ in that a theory is a well-established framework built upon extensive evidence, whereas a hypothesis is a testable prediction or explanation that is formulated as part of research or experimentation.
They might not have understood quantum physics, genetics, or general relativity.
No, Luke, Mark, Herodotus, and Thucydides are not wholly accurate. Narrative accounts from antiquity contain hyperbole, exaggeration, and allegory in addition to nuggets of historical information. You shouldn't hold Christian authors to a different standard from everyone else in antiquity. That would not be honest skepticism. It would be hyper-skepticism.
Early Church Bishops from the late first century and second century identified the authors of the Gospels. They appear to be quite sure who wrote the accounts; i.e., eyewitnesses, or people who spoke to the eyewitnesses.