A simple challenge for atheists

[SteelCurtain]

So let's recap. Going over the traditional philosophical arguments of the existence of God with this group is unproductive because the answers are either 1) prove it and/or 2) claims that "we don't know so therefore God" are not proof.

Good so far. When one makes an assertion, it is incumbent upon that person to provide satisfactory evidence for that assertion. Also, claims that "we don't know so therefore anything" are not proof. Do you not see it as odd that you have to ascribe to mental gymnastics in order to come to the final conclusion that your belief has met your own unlofty goal of simply not being irrational?

This ignores that fact that the arguments are not meant to prove conclusively, but rather to assign a probability ranging from a) no way, b) more likely than not, or c) likely. You cannot claim 100% "no way" to any of them and support that conclusion.

Once again, does it not strike you as odd that your particular god, omnipotent being that he is, can do no better than many times debunked philosophical arguments? If this is the one true religion as you claim it is, then why not make it obvious? Why rely on brain games which attempt to prove a deity's existence, not specifically his?

I gave you the rather dramatic miraculous evidence witnessed by the early Christians. I gave you secular links as to the historicity of Jesus. I also pointed out that hearsay evidence is still evidence. I don't care if you don't think the evidence is strong enough. You cannot say there is no evidence. You can also provide a hundred links from people with opinions on the matter. I can provide a hundred more opinions too.

You did all this. You failed to respond adequately to the special pleading case that we are collectively making. Why is this amount of evidence convincing enough for the Bible and not for any other text ever? Your claim is that the eyewitnesses in the Bible are more reliable because of what they are reporting. So you are basing your ability to specially plead on the very thing you are claiming. Do you not see a problem with this?

I don't have to prove anything to you. I am only trying to avoid the claims that my beliefs are irrational. There is a very big difference between those two things.

Then why are you here? Okay, we get it. You believe your beliefs are rational. We don't. You haven't presented anything thusfar that would change that.