(June 28, 2016 at 10:56 am)KevinM1 Wrote:(June 28, 2016 at 7:41 am)SteveII Wrote: I really don't know what you mean by "mere existence wouldn't be an impossibility".
But as to why the existence of God is not more obvious, I think that since 80-90% of the world believes in some sort of religion speaks to how obvious or not obvious that might be. Additionally, free will is a factor. Our chief purpose is to freely choose to know God so how obvious can God make it before that is affected? Of course you seem to be presupposing that the claims of the NT are completely false, so now you are arguing in a circle:
1. There is no evidence for God (i.e. supernatural events)
2. The NT does not count because of supernatural events
3. Therefore there is no evidence for God.
It's not circular because the NT is a claim of supernatural events, not evidence for them.
Really, I expected better from you with that.
What is the difference? How do we know any historical event happened? People write about it.
