What would convince you that God doesn't exist?

[abnoxio]

I'm interested what it would take for a Christian, Catholic, etc. to be convinced that God did not exist.
In other words what kind of proof would convince you. The discovery of Jesus's body? Alien invaders? that kind of thing.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.

[Cephus]

I was primarily addressing McCulloch's charge of the falsifiability of Christianity. Exhuming the body of Jesus would falsify it. As to whether or not people would accept it being falsified would be another matter.

If nobody accepts it then it's really irrelevant whether it was falsified or not, isn't it? I'd argue that Christianity was proven false long ago, just nobody seems to care.

[AlAyeti]

If no one posed any question about the issue.

[ENIGMA]

Oh, Christians would find a way around it. They'd claim it was the work of Satan. Or a test by God. Anything to keep the faith.

I was primarily addressing McCulloch's charge of the falsifiability of Christianity. Exhuming the body of Jesus would falsify it. As to whether or not people would accept it being falsified would be another matter.

Ok, I'll bite:

How would one be able to tell whether the exhumed body is the one of Jesus or not?

If there is no way to make such a determination, then such is not a potential means of falsification.

[otseng]

How would one be able to tell whether the exhumed body is the one of Jesus or not?

I was afraid someone was going to ask me this.

You might be right. There might be no way to conclusively prove if it was the bones of Jesus. But, I've been thinking about this and we might be able to narrow it down.

Here are some criteria that I thought about:

1. No bones can show any signs of being broken. If there are any signs, then it could not be Jesus.
2. The bones would probably show signs of crucifixion. The bones around the wrist and feet would probably show signs of rubbing against metal.
3. One would guess the bones should be exhumed near Jerusalem since that was the area that he died at.
4. Carbon 14 dating should reveal an age around 30 AD.
5. One could probably do facial reconstruction and compare it with paintings.
6. If the Shroud of Turin is authentic, then the measurements should match between the bones and the image.

Also, DNA testing might be possible, but I'm not sure what you would compare it with.

[Cephus]

How would one be able to tell whether the exhumed body is the one of Jesus or not?

Obviously, nobody would accept that, but I'd point out that there are some Christians who claim that they found the tomb of Jesus. How do they know? It's EMPTY!

Oh brother.

[abnoxio]

Here are some criteria that I thought about:

1. No bones can show any signs of being broken. If there are any signs, then it could not be Jesus.
2. The bones would probably show signs of crucifixion. The bones around the wrist and feet would probably show signs of rubbing against metal.
3. One would guess the bones should be exhumed near Jerusalem since that was the area that he died at.
4. Carbon 14 dating should reveal an age around 30 AD.
5. One could probably do facial reconstruction and compare it with paintings.
6. If the Shroud of Turin is authentic, then the measurements should match between the bones and the image.

Also, DNA testing might be possible, but I'm not sure what you would compare it with.

[/quote]

I don't think any of those could offer any real evidence either way. Most paintings portraying Jesus's face that we are familiar with are all painted by artists who never saw Jesus.

And the Shroud in my opinion is a pure forgery

Plus bones could have been broken after Jesus's death.

But it is definetely food for thought.

[Cephus]

[*]No bones can show any signs of being broken. If there are any signs, then it could not be Jesus.

That assumes that bones might not have been broken later, or that the account in the Bible is accurate.

[*]The bones would probably show signs of crucifixion. The bones around the wrist and feet would probably show signs of rubbing against metal.

Crucifiction was a common means of death in Roman times, that wouldn't really prove anything one way or the other.

[*]One would guess the bones should be exhumed near Jerusalem since that was the area that he died at.

They'd pretty much have to be, wouldn't they? How much credibility would bones being exhumed in South Africa have?

[*]Carbon 14 dating should reveal an age around 30 AD.

C-14 isn't that exact. Even the best tests we have today are only accurate +/- about 50 years.

[*]One could probably do facial reconstruction and compare it with paintings.

Since most paintings show Jesus as a white guy and we know he wasn't, that's not going to be much help, is it?

[*]If the Shroud of Turin is authentic, then the measurements should match between the bones and the image.

We already know the Shroud is a forgery so that's no help either.

Also, DNA testing might be possible, but I'm not sure what you would compare it with.

That's the problem, the only people to compare to would be Jesus' immediate family on his mother's side and we don't have any of their remains. Jesus had no children we know of, so that's out.

I don't know, does God have DNA?

[ENIGMA]

How would one be able to tell whether the exhumed body is the one of Jesus or not?

I was afraid someone was going to ask me this.

Just doin' my job.

You might be right. There might be no way to conclusively prove if it was the bones of Jesus. But, I've been thinking about this and we might be able to narrow it down.

Here are some criteria that I thought about:

Perhaps...

No bones can show any signs of being broken. If there are any signs, then it could not be Jesus.

Unless they were broken afterwards either in transit to the tomb or due to some event over the next couple millenia, which leaves this as potentially incorrectly rejecting a positive find.

The bones would probably show signs of crucifixion. The bones around the wrist and feet would probably show signs of rubbing against metal.

Granted. Assuming that Jesus was crucified, then this seems a reasonable prerequisite.

One would guess the bones should be exhumed near Jerusalem since that was the area that he died at.

Unless unmentioned circumstances lead to his burial elsewhere or was exhumed and reburied elsewhere later by people who didn't realize the significance of the body they were hauling around. Thus not being near Jerusalem would not disqualify the body from being Jesus, again leading to potential rejections of a positive find.

Carbon 14 dating should reveal an age around 30 AD.

Assuming no evidence of external contamination, I can agree.

One could probably do facial reconstruction and compare it with paintings.

Assuming that the painting used in comparison was one taken of Jesus while he was still alive, then perhaps yes, but to my knowledge no such paintings exist.

If the Shroud of Turin is authentic, then the measurements should match between the bones and the image.

Without a basis to determine the authenticity of the shroud, this point is moot.

Also, DNA testing might be possible, but I'm not sure what you would compare it with.

There is nothing to compare it with, that's the main reason why such an identification process cannot be used.


The main problem with all of the above criteria is that they propose something which is a necessary criteria for the body to be identified, but they completely fail to propose something that is a sufficient criteria for the body to be identified, leaving the question above effectively unanswered, and thus leaving this as an unviable means of falsification.

[starseyer]

How would one be able to tell whether the exhumed body is the one of Jesus or not?

Obviously, nobody would accept that, but I'd point out that there are some Christians who claim that they found the tomb of Jesus. How do they know? It's EMPTY!

Oh brother.

Does anyone even have an exact identification on the tomb itself? Last I looked into the issue, there is some sort of "traditional" burial site of Jesus, but do they even know for sure?

[otseng]

Just doin' my job.

... somebody has to keep me in line.

Well, I might not get any blood out of this turnip, but I'll squeeze a little more just to be sure.

Unless they were broken afterwards either in transit to the tomb or due to some event over the next couple millenia, which leaves this as potentially incorrectly rejecting a positive find.

I leave open the fact that it could've been broken after it was buried. What I was thinking about was marks of bones that have been broken and that healed itself. I'm no doctor so I don't know if there are signs of this in bones that have been broken and healed.

Unless unmentioned circumstances lead to his burial elsewhere or was exhumed and reburied elsewhere later by people who didn't realize the significance of the body they were hauling around. Thus not being near Jerusalem would not disqualify the body from being Jesus, again leading to potential rejections of a positive find.

That could be a case. But, it would be odd (esp for any Jews) to exhume a body and rebury it in another locality.

Assuming that the painting used in comparison was one taken of Jesus while he was still alive, then perhaps yes, but to my knowledge no such paintings exist.

Hmm, this might not be good evidence since no such paintings exist that I know of either.

But, there is one study that attempted to show what Jesus could've looked like based on exhumed average skull data. Though I'm not sure how accurate their guess would be.

Another obvious fact that I left out would be that the bones should be characteristic of a male in the early 30s.

The main problem with all of the above criteria is that they propose something which is a necessary criteria for the body to be identified, but they completely fail to propose something that is a sufficient criteria for the body to be identified, leaving the question above effectively unanswered, and thus leaving this as an unviable means of falsification.

As of now, I think I would agree with you. The points I brought up would not be sufficient for a proof.