It's quite possible to believe in God without any experience of God.
This is as illogical as it gets. Facts are not 'strong', and whether a fact is 'believable' is neither here nor there.
I have no clue what you are trying to argue here. For what it's worth, the NT does not unequivocally state that Jesus was the Son of God. Which is, at any rate, a doctrine. Doctrines are not facts. They are part of a belief system, and just as facts don't care about belief systems, belief systems may not care about facts.
That still doesn't make it an objective statement about the nature of reality. Otherwise, such mediaeval Christian thinkers as St Anselm of Canterbury would not have needed to devise ideas such as the ontological argument for the existence of God.
I am not making an objective statement of fact. I agree that some humans feel the need to do so.
Am I going to be told now that every human has to accept every fact, and if a fact is not accepted, then it is not a fact? While a fact does not change, the point of it's acceptance can be strong or not at all for that matter. Are we really quibbling over my ability to properly express a point?
To repeat my phrase: From a logical standpoint, The historical fact (Jesus was only alive on the earth one time for a period of 30~ years) would have the most (strongest) acceptance at that time, and the acceptance would change over time.
What does the NT have to do with the point of being unequivocal? We get every claim about the NT: from the NT is the inspired word of God to it was guess work hundreds of years later. By the mid second century 150 AD, Clement and Origin around 200 AD already recognized the Inspiration and Authorship of the NT, to the point where only the book of Hebrews was in contention of authorship. The NT was written and compiled between 90 and 150 AD. The claim is already given and unquestioned that Origen was the most prolific writer of that time, and most was exegesis on the Bible. The church had already accepted the Bible at that point. However not every human and not even every church theologian, philosopher, and elected/ordained official agreed on every fact that was presented in the NT. Even the doctrine of the Trinity was not even fully formed because Origen himself did not completely understand the Holy Spirit aspect of God, nor it's connection to the human trichotomy. The point that Jesus was God was still being debated back and forth, because they literally were claiming One God and placing Jesus as God would seem to be two persons, or at the least two beings.
Each individual person is not polyhuman. Nor is God as a trinity polytheist. Most humans who theorize about God, go back to Plato as a form of reference to even describe God. God has no physical attribute. However every physical aspect of reality does not exist without God. Humans before Plato viewed God as the beginning, but then the universe was accepted as void of God, or the universe itself was considered God, and everything that humans could describe about God was attributed to the universe only. When Jesus entered the scene, not even the religion of Judaism had a clear idea of God, The culture of temple worship was just a hollow figure under Roman Law which had replaced the Hellenization of the Greeks, which had replaced the supervision of the Persians, Assyrians, and Babylonians. Even though it was just a shell of the past, the culture still maintained a monotheistic view of God amidst the polytheistic views of all the nations around them. The only physical aspect of God in the human experience was the OT of the Jews. Humans had already claimed the physical universe as their own manifestation.
Except for one point. Every human was also the image of God, and in effect God on earth, even though that point was buried in the past. From a theological aspect God has three parts, which the doctrine of the Trinity is supposed to represent, but sometimes misses the relation to the human image of God. As pointed out each human is NOT considered multiples of itself. Nor is God polytheistic in a triune form. The three parts of a human are body, soul, and spirit. The body is the easiest part to comprehend, but it is only the shell. Like the universe is only the shell of the physical aspect of God. The only control each human has is over the physical aspect, including the body, and humans are the thinking beings (that we have seen so far) capable of being stewards of the physical universe they have access to, or ability to gain access to. The NT and most if not all early church fathers (even the so called heretics) understood that Jesus would be the one and only physical manifestation of God as a human on earth. In the OT, God was manifested in human form, but never as a historically born human. Jesus took on the form of a human, because the human was the image of God on earth.
The second part of the human is the soul. There is no physical point to the soul at all, although materialist will claim that the soul (or persona) who each human is, has to have a physical component. The soul is God. The soul is the eternal part. The soul is the breath of life. The soul is not part of the physical universe. The soul is what makes us an individual apart from God, but at the same time (through free will) can be a part of God. Some have equated the soul with the mind, but the mind is part of the physical makeup. The soul has a connection to the mind, but who we are is not our physical part. Our physical body just limits our capabilities in a physical way.
The last part of the human is the spirit. And not even philosophers or early church fathers fully developed what the spirit was. It may even be said that it took up to the Nicaea creed to solidify the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. I am not even sure if it is completely understood today, because most humans do not mention it, or do so in passing. If the point that Jesus was God was misunderstood, then the point of what the Spirit of a human is; is even more misunderstood. Some even want to just conflate the spirit with the soul. What the spirit of man is may not be clearly spelled out in the Bible, nor written in such a way that most readers would even attach to. Part of the misunderstanding is that the church fathers relied on the Greek philosophy to explain what is spiritual. The spirit was compared to just a separate life-force in opposition to the soul, or they were combined and humans only had a body and soul. This led to the point that Jesus only embodied the Spirit of God, but was not God. For one thing we are not even connected to our own spirit in any usable means under our own physical or even spiritual control. That is why the Greeks commented on the three parts, but eventually gave up, because what the spirit was had become lost knowledge. Jesus is said to have promised the Spirit of God as his replacement on earth, but it was also a loan giving us back access to God, because humans no longer had this part available to them. We are no longer the image of God, because the spirit is what was lost to us, taking away our access to God, and just leaving us a hollow empty physical shell of a body. The apostle Paul described this as the spiritual body waiting for us in the resurrected ability of the Lord Jesus Christ. In Genesis before the Flood, God said "My Spirit shall not always strive with man". It was at that point humans lost the spirit connecting us to God, and humanity joined the sons of Adam, who had lost that ability since Seth was born in Adams image without the third part of humanity (the spirit) which allowed humans direct contact with God. Only after Jesus died on the Cross, and was resurrected would humanity be allowed the realization of what the third part of humanity actually was. That part was not even restored, because God only gave us the loan of the Spirit, and only by request. As the Greeks were off in their thinking, and the early church fathers accepted the Greek philosophy instead of forming their own thoughts, the only realization that has been passed on is the acceptance of the Holy Spirit as the triune nature of God. The spirit was shown to the disciples during the transfiguration of Jesus, when his spirit was actually shown to them. Jesus was fully God, and fully human, and revealed his spirit for a brief period of time, for the disciples to pass down to all they taught after Jesus was departed from the earth. IMO it would seem that the Roman church chose the teaching of a guardian angel to prevent the true nature of the human spirit to be passed on. Neither has the importance of borrowing the Holy Spirit been passed down. There have been groups that pop up now and then, that for the most part may or may not be genuine, and have been for the most part rejected by main stream Christianity and all of it's divisions. And the advent of science and only allowing proof in the physical world has not helped maintain a connection with the spiritual one either. Whether or not the Greeks ever had a handle on it, there is some merit still held in paganism and other groups who have maintained there is a spiritual component to life. Re-incarnation may be some form of attempting to finally be connected to the spiritual part, that is unattainable in any physical form but only after multiple tries. The Jews and even others hold to some form of spiritual connection upon death. There was a given period, usually three days, where the soul may not be connected to it's eternal body, and wander as a ghost, or may by some miracle re-enter the body, thus not terminating the physical body at that time.
I understand this is my theological thesis on the topic of the Trinity. This is in no way a treatise on the proof of there even being a God. Technically not even a statement of fact. or belief for that matter. It is simply putting together a puzzle without a view of how it goes, and resting on what the puzzle reveals when all the parts are finally laid to rest. So the NT had to be in place before Clement and Origin, because they were not credited for writing it or even editing it for that manner, but they were credited for determining the validity of the NT. Yes there have been thousands of translations and versions since then, and even today humans are changing the text and sometimes even the meaning of the Bible. That does not mean that it is an evolving book. Language and word usages have evolved, and the original message has been preserved over the years. Also there is the point that we are (from a physical standpoint) only our body. Some have pointed out over the years that we are lost souls. Some even deny they are a soul, and only their physical shell. The ability to think does not fully explain the soul, but the soul explains personality. Is it possible to create a physical human representative that also has personality? It is the speculation of science fiction. But it would seem the argument is going in the wrong direction. Why are we programmed to be able to think on our own, and have personality? Why are we not just programmed to do things a certain way? Would we have to protect ourselves from our own creation, if it was only programmed to do as it was told? If that creation was felt as a threat to humanity, would we terminate it, or would we just accept our fate, and just perceive it as our own evolutionary future?
