Religious Background

[TheBeardedDude]

No offence, but I can't discuss anything with someone who hides behind a misuse of "special pleading" at every turn. 

This is the pot calling the kettle black

When all you present to me are logical fallacies or misrepresentations of my points (regardless of how long it took you to write it), there is nothing of substance to reply to. The theological interpretations you present are irrelevant and back-up my point that there are only two options when it comes to the bible: 1) literal interpretation, 2) non-literal interpretation. [1] The rest of my points remain.

There is no "deeper level" to discuss the paucity of evidence for biblical claims. The specifics of theological arguments (that assume a god is a possible thing and that it is possible for the bible to be true) are not relevant with respect to what has been my primary point all along: there is no evidence to show a god is a possible thing to exist. Meaning that it doesn't matter what apologetics you engage in within the context of believing your religion, because I have no reason to believe your religion is possible. As I (and others) have pointed out several times, it doesn't matter if people believe in magic because that tells me nothing about whether or not magic is real. If you want your magic to be considered possible, you need evidence the bible is true. Pointing to the bible for said evidence is circular (you can't use the source of the claim as evidence the claim is true). [2]

1. Sure there are two options. However, the Bible is no one or the other. It contains both. You have to use your brain to figure out which. 

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics
  
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis
  

To say it has to be one or the other and then use that as a reason that it is wrong is just poor reasoning.

2. Three points on the New Testament not being the claim:

1. The claim is that the events outlined in the gospels really happened--one in particular: that Jesus Christ, the son of God, came to earth to redeem humanity and provide a way for people to have a relationship with God. 
   
2. The gospels and Acts catalog the claim. The balance are letters discussing and applying the claim.
   
3. The NT consists of 27 different documents written over 50 years time (give or take). It's just nonsense to describe such a diverse collection of palaeographical gold as if it were one thing: the claim.
   

Evidence for this claim are the people and events surrounding the life of Jesus that the authors wrote about. It is not as if the gospel writers wrote an essay on what people were saying and gave no opinion on the facts. They were testifying to its truthfulness (as evidenced by their own experience or by interviewing eyewitnesses as they wrote it). 

In addition (and as I outlined previously), the NT points out several pieces of additional evidence:

- There were churches in many major cities stretching from Palestine to Rome before Paul started to write his letters to them around 50ad. Not only were there churches, but they believed in the major events outlined in the gospels prior to the gospels and Paul's letters.
- Paul quotes several creeds in his letters that appear to have been used among the early church prior to his letters.
- Many historians think that there existed another document Q that predates the gospels and we can reconstruct parts of it from the gospels.

It is not even up for debate whether this stuff is evidence. By definition it is. The debate is whether it is compelling enough to convince a reasonable person of the truth of the conclusion woven throughout. It is only the naive or obnoxious atheist that thinks that arguments of "no evidence" are part of a reasonable dialog. The most any of you has the right to say is that the evidence is, personally, not compelling (which is an opinion). 

3. The cumulative evidence that I believe that supports my belief (another opinion) is below:

i. Person of Jesus is compelling.
ii. The NT describes actual events including the miracles, life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
iii. God works in people's lives today--changing people on the inside as well as the occurrence of miracles.
iv. The natural theology arguments:
a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

Since you cannot 'prove' that any of these are falsely held beliefs, my conclusion (opinion) that God exists is rationale. The amount of evidence meets my personal threshold for proof that God exists.

1. Sure there are two options. However, the Bible is no one or the other. It contains both. You have to use your brain to figure out which.

Another half-baked attempt at insult. 

Once again, it doesn't matter if your view is that it is both simultaneously. When there is no objective standard to hold any interpretation (literal or otherwise) to, there is no way to discern what interpretation is valid. Alternatively it makes more sense to look at it as being all mythology that was once believed (and still is by some, clearly) to be true (literally or metaphorically). 

Without valid reason to trust the bible as a source of truth, there is no reason to do so. 

To say it has to be one or the other and then use that as a reason that it is wrong is just poor reasoning.

Even you just admitted it is either one or the other. So are you engaging in "poor reasoning?" Or is it that you are so invested in your religion that you can't accept the possibility that it is all bullshit? (guess which one I think it is)

Evidence for this claim are the people and events surrounding the life of Jesus that the authors wrote about.

That is evidence that people believed it (the authors weren't contemporaries though nor eye witnesses. They were written long after it supposedly happened) and NOT evidence that their beliefs are true. Once again, I use the alien abduction example. The stories of alien abductions are EVIDENCE...that people believe they were abducted but NOT EVIDENCE that they actually were.


- There were churches in many major cities stretching from Palestine to Rome before Paul started to write his letters to them around 50ad. Not only were there churches, but they believed in the major events outlined in the gospels prior to the gospels and Paul's letters.

Who gives a shit that people believed it in the 1st century? That adds literally no validity to the claims that what they believed is true. There were many temples and pantheons in Greek and Roman times and people sincerely believed Zeus would strike them dead with a lightening bolt, but that doesn't mean that their beliefs were true or are true.

- Paul quotes several creeds in his letters that appear to have been used among the early church prior to his letters.

1) Paul founded the Christian church. So you talking as if a christian church existed prior to Paul is factually incorrect (even within the history of Christian theology)
2) And none of these stories about Jesus from Paul corroborate any of the claims made of Jesus (and most of the miracle claims of Jesus don't come from Paul. Paul seems blissfully unaware of most of what Jesus supposedly did. Almost as if the people writing the later gospels were just making shit up for their legend...)

- Many historians think that there existed another document Q that predates the gospels and we can reconstruct parts of it from the gospels.

And unless these documents contain evidence that magic is real, it still doesn't validate the central claims of Christianity (god is real and a man-god came to earth to do magic)

It is not even up for debate whether this stuff is evidence. By definition it is. The debate is whether it is compelling enough to convince a reasonable person of the truth of the conclusion woven throughout. It is only the naive or obnoxious atheist that thinks that arguments of "no evidence" are part of a reasonable dialog. The most any of you has the right to say is that the evidence is, personally, not compelling (which is an opinion). 

More half-baked attempts at insult. I won't continue to engage with someone who's only tactic is to continue to hurl about shitty insults because they don't understand the points I am making. 

This "stuff" is evidence of WHAT people believe but NOT that what they believe is true. People believe homeopathy is valid and real, but they too are mistaken.

3. The cumulative evidence that I believe that supports my belief (another opinion) is below:

I don't care what you believe. I care about whether or not there is evidence (independent of the bible) to support the central claims of Christianity (a god is possible and a man-god came to earth to do magic)

i. Person of Jesus is compelling.
The possibility that a preacher named Yeshua lived in the early 1st century is probable. The possibility he performed magic (miracles) and was the son of a god are unfounded, baseless, and without evidence. 

ii. The NT describes actual events including the miracles, life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
The NT describes SOME actual events (like the burning of the temple) and a lot of events for which there is no evidence they are even possible (miracles). The fact that you believe these things isn't compelling in the slightest. People believe all sorts of things that are unfounded and can't be shown to even be possible.

iii. God works in people's lives today--changing people on the inside as well as the occurrence of miracles.
Never seen any evidence this is true. 

iv. The natural theology arguments:

a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists. Nope. Occam's Razor would suggest that the best explanation for why anything exists has a natural explanation, not a supernatural one
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe. Nope. Occam's Razor would suggest that the best explanation for how the universe originated is a natural cause or that it has no cause.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life. The fine-tuning argument is complete rubbish. The universe isn't setup to allow for life, life has evolved to withstand certain conditions in certain places. The arrogance it takes to look at the universe and say "this was all made just right for us" is overshadowed only by the ignorance it takes to look at the vast unwelcoming universe and proclaim that it was made with the intention of it being suitable for life. 
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness. This doesn't even make sense
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties. Objective morality doesn't exist

Since you cannot 'prove' that any of these are falsely held beliefs, my conclusion (opinion) that God exists is rationale (sic). The amount of evidence meets my personal threshold for proof that God exists.

Logical arguments don't work by saying "you can't prove me wrong." The onus is on you to prove yourself correct. So your opinion is still baseless. 

And once again, I don't care that you believe (on faith) that there is enough evidence to justify your belief in a god. Every single thing you've pointed to as "evidence" that your beliefs are true, are evidence of what you believe. 

If I told you that I have in front of me a new, undescribed fossil from 380 million years ago, that would be evidence of my claim. That statement is NOT evidence that what I said is true though. In order to demonstrate that my statement is true, I'd need to provide evidence (pictures, molds, 3D scans, etc) of the specimen that I have and a description of the specimen that shows that it is sufficiently different from other species in the same group so as to warrant a new species designation. What you want to do is point to the statement and go "AH HA! See! What I believe is true because I have evidence of what I believe!" That isn't how evidence works when it comes to satisfying the burden of proof for a claim.