Existence of Jesus

[Edwardo Piet]

Which was the point of my post: just as the theist can't use one part of the Bible to verify the rest, neither can we use the absurdity of one to refute the rest. As you say, it is a mish-mash of fact and fiction.

Of course I'm not using the absurdity as any support for slightly less absurd absurdity or anything like that lol!

All I'm thinking is that perhaps its more probable that the 'miraculous' absurd Supernatural Lord Jesus Christ of the bible is BASED on a real person than the whole thing was made up out of nothing.

Of course THE Jesus didn't exist. Because there was no virgin birth or son or God or miracles and whatnot!

But I think maybe 'THE Jesus' was based on someone who really existed - aka the 'real' Jesus. Perhaps that's more likely than the whole thing being made up out of nothing?

Also a question: There is tons of evidence for evolution - but if someone believed in it and didn't know a thing about it - they just took someones word for it when they were told it was true without knowing if there's any evidence of it - now is that belief based on evidence or faith?

The belief in evolution in this case is based on evidence because there IS evidence - even though the hypothetical person doesn't know about it.

But then also the hypothetical person is just taking the word for it without knowing OF any evidence - just like belief in faith. Even though of course there IS evidence. He/she just doesn't know about it and believes anyway.

So is that belief in evidence or faith? I'd still say its evidence even if its just being 'trusted' rather than actually knowing about the evidence.

Because the evidence is still there.

Trusting in the unknown is not the same as faith - because IF there is evidence - then its belief in evidence.

Believing in God when there's no evidence is totally different - the chances of there being any is ridiculously small - and rather at least, the amount of evidence and the strength of the evidence required would be absurdly large.

Especially when you consider the fact that God is more improbable than the universe itself.

And for example - there is no current evidence of God OR aliens - but aliens are far far far more likely than God.

In fact because of course the universe is so utterly massive - some scientists think that its much more likely that aliens exist somewhere than not - than us being the only life.

DESPITE the fact there's no (known) evidence of aliens at all.

If there are aliens then there's of course evidence of them! Lol.

And if statistically its more likely they exist than not - then believing in them is most likely based on evidence not faith - because if they exist then there's evidence to be found somewhere (even if we never do find it).

So there may be no known evidence that THE Jesus was based on someone - yet I think its perhaps more likely than not.

If the evidence is in fact out there somewhere - even if its never to be found - then that belief on mine is based on evidence, right?

Scientists often believe in a hypothesis and then go and find the evidence and 'prove' their point, right?

Its confusing, but I think very interesting. I don't think the two are always mutually exclusive. In fact; in my experience they're often inclusive

EvF