Did Jesus really exist?

Originally posted by josephw
Every one is a doofus. That's why we need Jesus. This thread is proof of that, as are all the other threads.

I disagree that we 'need Jesus' [or god/s], or that this thread is evidence of that.

However, even if that were so... The fact that we might need Jesus, doesn't mean that
Jesus is/was actually real.

There is no law of the universe that says that you/we/anyone will always get what you/we/they need.

Indeed there are countless millions of species that quite clearly did not get what they needed
and are thus now extinct. [The non-avian dinosaurs could have really done with an asteroid shield
and means to survive the simultaneous massive volcanism that was going on at the time...
along with ~70% of all other species alive at the time]


Thus the fact that you believe that we need god/Jesus, or that you want god/Jesus to be real, is not
any kind of evidence or argument for them actually being real and existing in reality.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I disagree that we 'need Jesus' [or god/s], or that this thread is evidence of that.

However, even if that were so... The fact that we might need Jesus, doesn't mean that
Jesus is/was actually real.

There is no law of the universe that says that you/we/anyone will always get what you/we/they need.

Indeed there are countless millions of species ...[text shortened]... is not
any kind of evidence or argument for them actually being real and existing in reality.

I declare that googlefudge is/was not actually real. Can anyone prove me wrong?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I declare that googlefudge is/was not actually real. Can anyone prove me wrong?

You still have the burden of proof wrong.
You just made a positive claim that I don't exist and you must substantiate that claim.
You will find that difficult.

The neutral position is, as always, not to believe either way until evidence sufficient
to justify belief either way is obtained. However, when such evidence HAS been obtained
then the neutral position is no longer the correct position to hold.

As it turns out, the existence of a human being who participates on internet forums is
a really pretty ordinary claim. And thus the bar for sufficient evidence to justify belief
in the existence of such a person is pretty low.

Now it is evidently true, that some entity is posting under the pseudonym 'googlefudge'.

The question [you are facetiously asking] is, "Is the entity posting under the pseudonym
'googlefudge' a real and singular human being?"

The evidence for this includes, but is not limited to:
A consistent posting style, indicative of a singular author.
Content beyond the abilities of all known AI chat-bots.
And you could also potentially include an analysis of IP and traffic data if you had such access.

That is more than enough to reasonably believe that I am a real person posting on these forums.

But as I say, claiming that a user on a web forum is a real person is not an extraordinary claim.
And so the burden of proof need not be very high.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You still have the burden of proof wrong.
You just made a positive claim that I don't exist and you must substantiate that claim.
You will find that difficult.

The neutral position is, as always, not to believe either way until evidence sufficient
to justify belief either way is obtained. However, when such evidence HAS been obtained
then the ne ...[text shortened]... a real person is not an extraordinary claim.
And so the burden of proof need not be very high.

Not a bad argument, but it's not going to get you very far when it comes to the spiritual life, as you appear to be interested in.

Case in point: Thomas.
He just couldn't wrap his physically-reliant mind around the claims he was hearing related to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Wanted concrete, put-it-in-my-face proof.
The Lord Jesus Christ didn't have too much of a problem with that, didn't reject him on account of his doubt.
Thomas was told to put his fingers into the wound... just to be safe it wasn't a ruse.
His faculties satisfied, Thomas acquiesed to his sovereign Lord.

He was received by Him, and then became an object lesson for the ages: blessed are those who believe without seeing.
That's kind of ironic, if you think about it.
The greatest mind that has ever been is not looking for people to accept Him on the account of the abilities of their minds.
He's using a completely different (if somewhat related) mechanism.
More perplexing: any idiot of baseline consciousness can accept what is physically and undeniably before them... thus rendering the rationale at least a little bit less important in the scale of things.

Faith is salvation's filter.

An all-powerful God could surely keep any number of artifacts or trophies sitting around on the off-chance that someone requests to see Noah's Ark or some such treasure.
Is that faith?

I know it sounds awfully corny, but faith is one of the three most important aspects of being known.
There's faith, hope and love.
Faith isn't quite there.
Hope is nearly so.
The goal is love.
You just can't get to the source of it except through faith.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You just can't get to the source of it except through faith.

If that's true...
Then you cannot "get to the source of it" at all... Because faith cannot get you anywhere.


Basically all you are saying, is that you cannot know god exists. [or Jesus, or whatever]

And thus atheism is the only correct position.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You still have the burden of proof wrong.
You just made a positive claim that I don't exist and you must substantiate that claim.
You will find that difficult.

The neutral position is, as always, not to believe either way until evidence sufficient
to justify belief either way is obtained. However, when such evidence HAS been obtained
then the ne ...[text shortened]... a real person is not an extraordinary claim.
And so the burden of proof need not be very high.

The word "NOT" makes it a negative claim. I do NOT believe in googlefudge or googlefudges. Or to put it another way, I lack a belief in googlefudge/googlefudges?

Originally posted by googlefudge
There is no law of the universe that says that you/we/anyone will always get what you/we/they need.

Oh, come on, that not what Mick Jagger says...

"You can't always get what you want,
You can't always get what you want,
You can't always get what you want,
But if you try sometimes well you just might find
You get what you need."

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Not a bad argument, but it's not going to get you very far when it comes to the spiritual life, as you appear to be interested in.

Case in point: Thomas.
He just couldn't wrap his physically-reliant mind around the claims he was hearing related to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Wanted concrete, put-it-in-my-face proof.
The Lord Jesus Chri ...[text shortened]... e is nearly so.
The goal is love.
You just can't get to the source of it except through faith.

Whoa! Whoa, now!

Awesome post. I regret that I only have one thumbs up to give to this post.

Faith is not just a candy that keeps babies and Christians satisfied, as the atheists claim.

Concise and to-the-point. Bravo.

Originally posted by googlefudge
If that's true...
Then you cannot "get to the source of it" at all... Because faith cannot get you anywhere.


Basically all you are saying, is that you cannot know god exists. [or Jesus, or whatever]

And thus atheism is the only correct position.

And yet you persist.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The word "NOT" makes it a negative claim. I do NOT believe in googlefudge or googlefudges. Or to put it another way, I lack a belief in googlefudge/googlefudges?

No, your post in it's entirety was...

I declare that googlefudge is/was not actually real. Can anyone prove me wrong?

"I declare that googlefudge is not actually real"

That is a positive claim that I do not exist.

You could have said that you lack a belief in my existence.
Or simply that you do not believe that I exist.
And you wouldn't have made a positive claim.
You would of course still be wrong to do so, because my existence is sufficiently
justified that you should believe that I exist.

However that is not what you said, and you did make a positive claim that I do not
exist. Whether that was your intention or not.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Whoa! Whoa, now!

Awesome post. I regret that I only have one thumbs up to give to this post.

Faith is not just a candy that keeps babies and Christians satisfied, as the atheists claim.

Concise and to-the-point. Bravo.

Faith is how all theists justify their beliefs in mutually contradictory gods.
It is thus multiply proven not to be effective at determining truth.
Backed up by the fact that it has no possible mechanism for determining truth.
It is thus completely and demonstrably useless.


You have never ever answered this problem with faith.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And yet you persist.

In being right.

Yes, it's annoying I know, but what can you do.

Originally posted by googlefudge
If that's true...
Then you cannot "get to the source of it" at all... Because faith cannot get you anywhere.


Basically all you are saying, is that you cannot know god exists. [or Jesus, or whatever]

And thus atheism is the only correct position.

For someone with an "above-average" level of understanding of most things, you still don't "get" this, do you?

Maybe faith cannot get YOU anywhere. Because you have no faith.

Faith gets us all the way to God.

And no, we are NOT saying that we "cannot know God exists". How you keep getting this wrong despite being told you're wrong numerous times is baffling. We are saying that we DO know God exists BECAUSE of faith. And thus atheism falls flat on its face.

Originally posted by Suzianne
For someone with an "above-average" level of understanding of most things, you still don't "get" this, do you?

Maybe faith cannot get YOU anywhere. Because you have no faith.

Faith gets us all the way to God.

And no, we are NOT saying that we "cannot know God exists". How you keep getting this wrong despite being told you're wrong numerous times ...[text shortened]... re saying that we DO know God exists BECAUSE of faith. And thus atheism falls flat on its face.

I know that you say that. Because I do listen to what you say.
I am not failing to understand you, I am disagreeing with you.
Faith is not evidence, let alone proof.
It doesn't get you anywhere.

Believing something really really strongly doesn't make it true.

There is nothing you cannot justify believing based on faith.
Therefore, there is nothing you can justify believing based on faith.

Because just as that which can 'explain' everything, explains nothing.
That which justifies everything, justifies nothing.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Faith is how all theists justify their beliefs in mutually contradictory gods.
It is thus multiply proven not to be effective at determining truth.
Backed up by the fact that it has no possible mechanism for determining truth.
It is thus completely and demonstrably useless.


You have never ever answered this problem with faith.

One has to have a mountain of faith to believe everything, such as the sun, stars, moons, planets, and life, came about by chance alone.