>has been run to invalidate the hypothesis? There hasn't been.
>So how can you say the hypothesis is invalid? The best you
>can say is that you can neither deny or confirm the existance
>of Jesus. You can't even say there is strong evidence against
>his existance, because there's a tome called the New Testament
>that talks about him.
>On the other hand, I don't have to prove Jesus'
>existance...it's called Faith. You guys posted about Jesus
>not existing...where's the scientific evidence that supports
>your claim?
>
>
A scientist will come up with a hypothesis. He then tests his hypothesis by way of experiment. If the results of his experiment support the hypothesis it then becomes a theory. At this point the rest of the scientific community will attempt to disprove the theory by way of further experiment. If the community are unable to disprove the theory it then becomes law.

Therefore, the burden of proof is on the believer to provide evidence to support the hypothesis, not the doubting community. The New Testament is not evidence, it is a book of stories. Am I to believe in the existence Little Red Riding Hood because there is a story about it?

The key word is faith. I do not contend that Jesus exists internally (there is in fact much merit in this), but I do contend his external existence because there's no evidence to support it.