John Smith wrote on Apr 10^th, 2014 at 8:47pm:


This isn't about claims any more, instead it is about a philosophy of history.

Your position is that we simply cannot know history. Every record can be made up, every writing can be copies of an inaccurate source. Even archaeology can be wrong, as it does not prove the narrative that accompanies it. That kind of framework forces all historical facts to be downgraded from facts to doubtable myths. 

Do we know the Roman Empire existed for a fact? No. Not without going back in time to see for ourselves. Why? Because ancient ruins don't prove the existence of a specific empire, they just prove the existence of a civilization. Do writings prove it's existence? No, because every record could be made up, every writing could be copies of an inaccurate source.

Once absolute proofs become a requirement to know history, and as there can never be absolute proofs without the ability to time travel, then all that we have left are doubts. Nothing can be known, all history is left to ones own beliefs as to what did and didn't happen. Once that happens no one can really call anyone out on any historical claim, as what happened in the past is each to their own. If you do however want to call anyone out on claims they may make, then you would have to show that your history is more grounded then the one you wish to call out. That is because since all that is on record in now in doubt, all that can now be done is to compare ones own belief of what history is to another's.

Quantum wrote on Apr 11^th, 2014 at 11:15am:


My point is and always has been about the claim that the evidence is irrefutable ... it's not

onto your other point, yes, I believe we cannot know much of history, at best its a guess based on our knowledge and experiences .. our knowledge of history is based on tid bits of information, with someone who was not there filling in the blanks based on their best guess. Sure its a simplistic approach, but thats the gist of it. 

Whilst often close, and often even correct in a broad sense, thse guesses cannot be counted as proof when it comes to the more specific issues.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 11^th, 2014 at 3:14pm:



lots of periods there NoN, might need to see a gynaecologist for polymennorhea.

aquascoot wrote on Apr 11^th, 2014 at 4:15pm:

Ah! Polymenorrhea.

Had a dog with that once. She'd rub her arse on the carpet to cure the itch... Poor old mutt. Still, her family was rich and her dad owned a brewery... So... Y'know...

John Smith wrote on Apr 11^th, 2014 at 2:49pm:



Your date of birth and your parents' identity is based on very slim evidence, bordering on hearsay. Who you are is very much doubtable.
The only person who was there was your mum - but how do you know she is your mum?
Any written document, your birth certificate, was issued some time after the birth, in an office far from the birth by someone who wasn't there.

It's true for most people. And you are at the very centre of that easily doubted set in information.
that's just something

But unless you want to go mad, you do not doubt your own birth date and your parents' identity [i]just because you could.[/i]

John Smith wrote on Apr 11^th, 2014 at 7:48pm:


I guess it is fortunate they didn't have HD back then...

But I think the point Soren is making would also extend to the the claim of witnesses. Who are these witnesses? Are any of them still alive? How can anyone know there were actual witnesses? All there is is a claim of witnesses. Even if someone comes forward and claims to be a witness, how do we know they are telling the truth? How could we even assume that they would actually remember one birth out of thousands from decades ago?

In a hundred years it would be easy to claim you never existed. "Is this really the birth certificate of that person in that photo?" "How do you know that's your great grandfather? Did your grandfather tell you that?" "How do we know the man who owned that business is the same man who travelled on this passport?" Even today creating a fake identity or living a lie through identity theft is quiet common. A person standing there with a birth certificate in hand still has to have a degree of doubt regarding their past no matter how small. 

Everything therefore can have doubt surrounding it. But there has to be a point where we accept that the evidence pushes left more than it pushes right. So far I believe only one person has claimed that the evidence for Jesus is irrefutable... and that person has not posted for many pages now.

Quantum wrote on Apr 11^th, 2014 at 8:12pm:


of course ... common sense must prevail ... I don't disagree with any of that. However, thats doesn't mean that just because we believe it, it happened.