First: I had to reply here because ALL of the other cases you responded to me you replied as the last entry in the nesting limit so it would let me reply there.
You keep saying "there is no evidence". That is false. There is ton's of evidence. There is no absolute "proof". But court cases are decided all the time without "proof". The archeological records that exist exceed all other sources of historical information in quality and quantity. So, we have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that real, credible eyewitnesses observed Jesus do and say amazing things. Now you, the jury, need to decide whether they are credible or not.
I haven't said anything about evidence. I've simply stated that science cannot be used to prove or disprove it. Writings in a book, and eye witness accounts are not sufficient data for the scientific method. You have to be able to replicate, experiment, etc for science to prove anything. It is a tool, it is not a belief system. In this case everything that is needed to use science to PROVE (or disprove) christ, God, etc is not there. It cannot be used to answer this question with what we have.
Yet, I haven't said a word about evidence that I recall. You may have decided to THINK of that word as you read something I wrote, but I haven't said that.
I have said Credible Witness does not matter to Science. Credible is subjective. Who gets to decide that person is Credible? Oh, yes right another human. Are not humans fallible, even the credible witness. Yet let's say what the witness said was 100% true. Science still couldn't use that because it couldn't test it, experiment with the data, and replicate it. So if there was a witness and it is true, the scientific method can't really rely on that. All that credible witness really does when it comes to a scientist is to EXCITE them into trying to find a way to prove it/disprove it. If they follow the scientific method it removes bias, yet even many "so-called" scientists (especially lately as its the only way they can get their state funding) do not practice it right all the time. They approach it with bias to produce the results they expect to receive to keep their funding going.
Yes. I agree that this has nothing to do with Science and am not trying to say there is a scientific way to know anything about the Unobservable. Science must recuse itself from having an opinion on the matter. However, humans are not constrained to only knowing what science can discover.
I agree with you completely here. In fact this was essentially ALL I was saying from the beginning, but I did get derailed by people firing off other things at me, that I didn't say.
Initially I did not attack religions at all in my posts. Simply explained why Science really couldn't be used here.