Existence of Jesus

[DD_8630]

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.

Why? Is there any evidence that Jesus actually lived (in a divine capacity or otherwise)?

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

Probably

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?

If they knew what it was, but they only had someone's word that it actually occurred... well, it depends on who that someone is. An authority on biology, or someone who is otherwise trustworthy, would count as tentative evidence. That is, if you have reason to trust them, then their word counts as evidence (albeit of the weakest sort). Even an iota of objective data would be enough to shatter that trust.

But, in the absence of anything else, we are 'allowed' to defer to their expertise.

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.

Hmm, that's not quite the same. Because, after all, why should the hypothetical person believe that there is evidence? If a theist came up to you said they had evidence for God, would you immediately bow to your knee and sing praises? No: you'd ask for this evidence.

The thing is, you and I are both quite experience with theistic arguments, so we have reason not to trust them: rigorous analysis has consistently shown them to be false, so we shouldn't believe future ones either (without analysing it as well, of course).

That's why religion is so powerful: religious leaders have traditionally been the leaders of the entire community, so they are seen as the wise authority on al matters. After all, they're right in everything else

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

Agreed: trust is evidence by proxy.

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.

Ah, but is that not itself evidence from statistical analysis? The entire field of thermodynamics rests upon probability theory, after all.

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?

Ah, no: there may be artefacts out there that, once found, constitute evidence for your beliefs. But just as you have no evidence for the existence of Jesus, neither do you have evidence for the existence of that evidence!

Evidence only becomes evidence when we have it. Otherwise, it's just hidden artefacts and data.