A simple challenge for atheists

[Esquilax]

Oh, then if we had 4 accounts from named eyewitnesses that wrote miracles happened, then you wouldn't believe them anyway. So the real problem is miracles and not really who did or did not write the narratives.

I'll entertain the probability of your miracle claims the exact moment you can demonstrate that miracles are even possible, which I don't think is an unreasonable request given that we're discussing the existence of a thing. By trying to just take the extraordinary claims here as a given you're putting the cart before the horse; a discussion of whether or not the gospels represent an accurate account of history necessarily requires that all of the events depicted therein be events that could actually happen. Obviously we could not call it an accurate representation if it contains things that were impossible, so demonstrating those events for which that is in question to be possible is a key part of the process. It's literally the first step: "could these things happen?" is a question we need to ask before "did these things happen?" and so far you seem desperate to just skip that stage, probably because doing so confers a slight bit more weight to your citations. But I'm under no obligation to assume some of your conclusions to be true, in order to allow you to prove that the rest of those conclusions are true, so that in turn we can verify those first claims as true. You're skipping steps simply because you have no method of passing the initial investigation, and we're not just going to let you do that.

However it is logically possible, even probable that if God exists, miracles happen.

And you can't just cover for your first baseless assertion with a second, because now you've just replaced "are miracles possible?" with "is god possible?" and even if you answer the latter question you'd still need to answer the former. As it stands, you're attempting to rush ahead without answering either question, and that alone makes every conclusion you draw suspect at best.

We are starting from 2 different position, you have pre-judged the content according to your worldview. My worldview is open to more options--therefore not irrational to believe the events described and the subsequent events of the early church happened.

So, I hope you can see how making such presumptions about what I think is not conducive to a productive exchange of ideas. Just ask, next time. I'm not averse to just telling you what I think.

Now, when you talk about being open to options, actually, that can be irrational, if you're open to options that are impossible. That's why I opened with the question you've yet to answer: how do you know miracles are possible? If you're just going to say that they would be possible if god exists, that's akin to saying that if aliens exist, UFOs are possible; you haven't actually answered the question, you've just detailed an alternate world in which miracles are possible, without ever demonstrating that that hypothetical world is this one. You're skipping basic questions and then going on as though you've answered them. It's like if I tried to prove the existence of a time travelling sentient mushroom by just starting out by assuming that both time travel and mushroom sentience were possible; it's begging the question.

While I'm at it- and I know there's like three more pages to the thread but my wife's in the hospital and that's a pretty good distraction- you denied that you were employing circular reasoning, stating that you just believe that the bible is an accurate historical record. But why do you believe that? Because the four books of the bible say so... oh, and we're back to circular reasoning again.