Christians - What would you do if it were discovered Jesus never existed?

[Drich]

As you can see from this thread, what I believe does not depend on what others believe. But yes, acting like you know the truth and standing by it no matter the evidence contradicting it because your reasoning is that "God is your proof" suggests circular thinking.

In other words, according to your argument, God is true because God is proof. Or God's Word is true because God is proof. Or what God says is true because God is proof. Hopefully, you see the flaw in such argument.

Ah, no. not even close old sport.

Let's start with a proper definition:
Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions. Academic Douglas Walton used the following example of a fallacious circular argument:
Wellington is in New Zealand.Therefore, Wellington is in New Zealand.[4]
He notes that, although the argument is deductively valid, it cannot prove that Wellington is in New Zealand because it contains no evidence that is distinct from the conclusion. The context – that of an argument – means that the proposition does not meet the requirement of proving the statement; thus, it is a fallacy. He proposes that the context of a dialogue determines whether a circular argument is fallacious: if it forms part of an argument, then it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Now think about this for a minute. What better proof of someone is there, than of the person in question? Let's say you said Obama was just a computer generated image being voiced by Jay Pharro from SNL. and I said no, I met Obama once durning a tour of the white house. Then you wanted to argue all of the philosophical reasons you think Obama is a CG character. Then I offer to take you on the same meet and greet tour to see for yourself, but first you must be vetted/background check (You must submit yourself through a process to see him) Which you decline, on some lunatic fantasy that you are his equal and that if he is real he must prove himself to you by doing the things you want to demonstrate his power and office. When He doesn't you then move to sumize that his inactivity concerning your list of demands is proof that he does not exist thus validating your use of philosophy in the absence of 'select real world proof.'

If all of that was to much for you let me break it down for you using the formula in the definition I provided.

The bible say God is alive, God therefore must be alive because the bible said he was.
A is true (the bible says God is alive) because B is true (God is alive.) B is true (God is alive) because A is true (Because the bible said God is alive.)

Do you see the circle now?

What I said: God is real because I have witnessed Him in my life and He offers you the same experience is not circular reasoning.