What he is claiming though is beyond the realm of investigation. How does one demonstrate that they exist outside of nature from inside nature? An alien claim is different, as that can (generally) be attributed to something inside nature.
Perhaps more pertinently: what test could they pass to prove that the consequences of believing in them (or not) are true?
On Earth, we see multi-billionnaire atheist with fantastic lives, while the poorest and most miserable countries in the world have the highest levels of belief. We're also regularly told by believers that belief will not necessarily bring you a better life here (right before they swear blind it does). Certainly the evidence is that if the Jesus under discussion was around today, we might believe in him, or we might not, but it would not necessarily affect our lives one way or the other.
The true "worth" of belief comes in what one gains or loses in the alleged afterlife. And what test could this Jesus pass to prove that there was an afterlife in the first place, let alone whether belief (or not) in him would give you a better place in the hypothetical afterlife?
There is also no way the character could prove that he was the ultimate creator of everything. Holes in the hand, walking on water, water into booze, could all maybe convince me he was the character written of in the Bible.....he'd tick all the boxes. But does any of that mean that he or his father/brother/other-half-of-the-gestalt actually
created the universe, as opposed to simply being powerful and with enough longevity to have been around before mankind and thus able to make up any story they wanted?
Point being: there seems to be NO test that Jesus or Yahweh could pass today to convince most of us that there is a long-term benefit to worshipping them, nor that there is any true reason to be grateful to them at all. The chief test of a benevolent god - is life getting better NOW for the people he claims to value most - is clearly and demonstrably failing, at least until such time as the Catch-22 is resolved to determine exactly which alleged group really ARE his chosen people.
So I'm left with the conclusion that belief in a particular god must indeed be solely and exactly that - a belief
, a faith, a wishful and hopeful thought that one would want to be true but which one can in no way demonstrate or prove, even so far as a "clearly most likely".
Which unfortunately means that NO faith is any more - or less - likely than the next one on the list, and the whole shebang comes down to which particular fable one feels most comfortable with. SPAG is indeed the only conceivable reason for choosing a particular faith.
Maybe we should cut the SPAGgers more slack? They are after all only taking the most logical path?