Can't prove the supernatural God

[SteveII]

But you dismiss anything that might help you understand all those questions. Dismissing the NT as false is a choice based on opinion of evidence. The consequence of that choice is effectively removing any chance to answer the questions you raise. So really your complaint is without some sort of revelation, we can't learn anything about the supernatural. We agree!

You are left with the conclusion you identified: the supernatural, if it exists, is not relevant to you. Realize this is a conclusion based on your opinions and not necessarily facts.

It's the same standard we apply to everything else, and you do, too. But when it comes to your scriptures, unlike us, you start using a different standard. We dismiss every First Century story of messiahs, miracles, and apocalypses as currently impossible to verify even if true, and strongly suspect because hearsay is unreliable and we can't even verify a miracle today. You agree with us except for the one set of First Century stories your religion is based on. Which is the reason you treat them differently. And that's fine, but it makes you look like an ass when you try to turn it around on us like if we were just reasonable, we would show your particular set of stories special deference and lower our standards of evidence for them the way you do.

In other words, lecturing us on our conclusions being based on opinions and not necessarily facts is pretty rich, coming from you.

I never said he did not have reasons to disbelieve the NT. I was simply pointing out the consequences of that belief was the questions he was raising. 

Regarding NT as fact. Everything in it could be a fact. Or some of it. Or none of it. Deciding which is an opinion.