Can't prove the supernatural God

[SteveII]

Let's cut to the chase. You think the description of miracles in the NT is untrue and therefore provide no support for the existence of miracles. Can you prove them to be untrue? No, you can give reasons why you think so. I think there are reasons to believe that it is true, so I think miracles happen. 

Gonna get nit-picky here.

Yes, I don't think the descriptions of miracles in the NT are true. The reason I don't think they support the existence of miracles is that that would be circular; the NT is the claim. The NT claims that miracles happened. You cannot use a claim as evidence of itself. You would have to confirm those claims with other evidence.

It is not up to me to prove that your assertion is wrong. If you are claiming that a thing does happen, it is up to you to point me to evidence that it happens. If you are claiming that a thing does exist, it is up to you to point me to evidence that demonstrates that this is true. If you have a good reason to believe that supernatural things (like miracles and gods) are actually real, then what is that reason? Until you give me a good reason to believe that your claims are true, it is completely reasonable for me to withhold belief in those claims.

I don't think you can consider the NT as the claim. "The claim" is Jesus was God, came to Palestine in the first century, performed miracles, preached a new message, died, and rose again for the purpose of redemption.

I have reasons to believe the NT contains 27 books written by different people within a lifetime of Jesus. Paul's letters actually are older than the Gospels. Paul discusses "the claim" in great length and it was clear that a large number of people from Palestine to Rome were receiving letters discussing "the claim" that they already believed. A few years later (possible decades for the latter 2), 3 editors compiled Matthew, Mark, and John, much the same way Luke did from existing writings and testimony.