@bornfromanegg - Similarly, I don't need to meet Jesus first hand to believe that he existed. There are other kinds of evidence. Similarly, I don't need to meet God to believe that he exists. There are other kinds of evidence. Similarly, I don't need to have been alive during Mahabharat in 3102 B.C to believe that's when it happened. There are other kinds of evidence.

@bornfromanegg - painting is one way to capture what we see with our eyes. photography is a better way to capture what we see with our eyes. Philosophically, they are the same when it comes to documenting the past. The technical details and resolution may vary. Fact.

@bornfromanegg - you did say 'Every source I can find without a clear bias says it was mostly written after 400 BC' - thereby implying that sources which say otherwise (Hindu scriptures saying 3000 B.C) are biased.

@bornfromanegg Wikipedia is not reliable source always. :)

@ram Secondly, I’ve already told you that I had no intention of engaging in an argument about faith, and apologised for questioning yours. So, whilst I doubt that I would agree with any of your ‘evidence’ for the existence of god, I’m not sure it’s worth arguing about.

@ram As for painting and photography, though. Well, the difference is that I can paint anything. I can’t photograph a dragon. I’d have though that was obvious.

@TheLittleNaruto :-) No, it is not. One should not rely on it exclusively.

@ram Yeah, but that’s painting! Photoshop is painting. You have to “paint” the dragon, because you can’t photograph it!

@bornfromanegg - the point of discussion is whether a painting of a person from 2000 years ago is reliable evidence. the answer is - it is philosophically as reliable as photograph of a person from 50 years ago. because both can be manipulated. the only difference is resolution.