... For most people, yes there is usually no proof they existed. But for someone who was influential they typically do have a lot of proof of existence,Message 1 of 59 , Aug 17, 2007View Source--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "richard" <meta@...> wrote:
>For most people, yes there is usually no proof they existed.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "bestonnet_00" <email@example.com>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 12:20 PM
> Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: free will, who's writing your email?
> > There is ultimately no historical proof that Jesus Christ ever lived
> > and quite a few reasons to doubt his existence. The very best that a
> > Christian could hope for would be that he was based upon one of many
> > deluded people who claimed to be the Jewish messiah around that time.
> Very seldom is there historical proof.
But for someone who was influential they typically do have a lot of
proof of existence, ancient rulers for example left plenty of evidence
that they existed and yet what do we have for Jesus?
A few third hand accounts written a couple of generations after his
death while no one who lived when he did seemed to even mention him.
Not to mention the accounts in the bible which require King Herod to
be both dead and alive at the same time (although maybe a
fundamentalist could claim it as evidence that the bible predicts
> There is very good historical reason for the probability that JesusWe've got better evidence for the existence of Santa Claus.
> as a man did exist, since there is secondary and inferential
There may have been someone called Jesus alive around that time but we
don't have enough to be able to actually say that there was a
The Jesus of the bible is probably a composite of many different
messiahs from around the time the new testament started to be written
combined with stories passed down orally. One of those supposed
messiahs may have been named Jesus Christ (or one may have been Jesus
and another Christ and the two combined) but calling that person the
Jesus from the bible is a bit of a stretch.
> That's your first mistake. You second mistake is confusing JesusWell who else is Jesus meant to be but Jesus Christ?
> with Jesus Christ.
... I m doing a Masters in physics right now. I knew very little about QM back when I was in Year 11 myself (and don t really know that much more now, howeverMessage 59 of 59 , Aug 21, 2007View Source--- In email@example.com, "iamthewayandthetruth111"
>I'm doing a Masters in physics right now. I knew very little about QM
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@>
> > I'm mentioning it because humans tend to have large quantum
> > numbers.
> I read the basic idea of it. I always thought the same, I saw some
> of the mathematics behind it but I didn't understand that because
> I'm not at a high enough level of mathematics, I'm going into
> pre-cal (11th grade).
back when I was in Year 11 myself (and don't really know that much
more now, however many lectures later).
> I've actually always been curious about how much the macroscopicCompared to classical theory pretty much not at all.
> world becomes altered over time because of quantum mechanics.
> If there were two concealed rooms floating in space with a tennisIf the rooms are absolutely identical and the balls identical and the
> ball bouncing around inside it at say 100 kmph and the room
> was 10 m^3 and both rooms started out absolutely identical, ~how
> long would it take a human eye to detect a difference in the
> location/velocity of the tennis balls? I don't know, but I've been
trajectory of the balls identical then I would expect classical
mechanics to hold just fine at that scale so it'll be a lot longer
than your lifetime before you notice any difference.
Doing a full quantum mechanical treatment is going to be very hard
though, even if you make a lot of approximations it wouldn't be worth
it for any practical purpose (although classical mechanics holding
well in the solar system didn't stop people using GR to calculate the
trajectory of the Apollo spacecraft).
> > I'd be more inclined to say \Delta x \Delta p >= \hbar / 2 myself.I'm not sure one can know how it works without understanding the
> No disagreement then I take it. I do know how the uncertainty
> principle works (it makes a lot of sense also) but I haven't learned
> the mathematics yet (although I have seen them).
mathematics behind it (and how it is related to the commutator).
> > It seems to be more like rambling.The bits that I can make sense of I've probably replied to already so
> I can't really say much about that but if you are more specific
> maybe I could come to an understanding.
I'm not really sure I can be much more specific about the bits where I
can't figure out what you're saying.