Four proofs of the nonexistence of God

[mordant]

Your analogy is lacking. Your pink elephant has no purpose/meaning/message, no explanation for its existence, no precedence, and not part of a bigger framework of the supernatural world. Lacking all those, it seem your pink elephant has no causal effect on the natural world and all your objections apply. But since angels or God has all those things, there is an effect on the natural world that can be measured (it might only be information) and so your objections do not apply.

Funny, I'd have said the same things about YOUR pink elephant deity of choice. Are you suggesting that if I provided a message and backstory and made up an explanation, as you have, that it would be worthy of consideration? Really?

What causal effect on the natural world do angels and God have? Other than just that you assert that they have?

If people witnessed an event and told someone else or wrote it down, then we do in fact have evidence.

We have claims. More: we have extraordinary claims, which raises the bar for the evidence required to substantiate them.

The problem is with defining words.

It's always good to agree on definitions.

Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive.

So far, so good, or at least good enough.

The churches spread throughout the empire within 15 years of Jesus' death, the the 27 different authenticated writings discussing Jesus and his teachings, and ancillary works and references throughout the first century is certainly evidence that Jesus did what the people claim he did and said the things they claim he said.

That a movement resulted and spread in a short time is evidence that people found the movement interesting / compelling.

What authentication are you talking about? The church councils? That was just the early church picking what scriptures it wanted to run with.

Proof can have different thresholds. Anywhere from more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence), to beyond a reasonable doubt, to absolute.

There is no such thing as absolute certainty. I go with preponderance of evidence, and when the evidence is overwhelming, "beyond reasonable doubt". Yet I arrive at pretty much the opposite conclusion on this topic from you. The reason? I don't accept holy books or church dogma as evidence and you do, mainly. Also, I did not find religious faith to be an epistemology that was valid (predicted or explained outcomes in life), whereas I found rational, logical and scientific avenues infinitely more effective in those regards.

These are all arrived at by considering evidence. So, to say that the NT is not evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine--that is the threshold you chose.

It is neither evidence nor proof. Scripture presents the assertions, by fiat ("god said so"). It does not provide evidence. And since its claims are extraordinary (invisible beings and realms, miracles, eternal perdition, afterlife, etc.) the evidence must be extraordinary.

That which is not evidenced can be dismissed without evidence.

I am still awaiting your evidence.

Excellent discussion on it at http://pediaa.com/difference-between-evi...and-proof/

All you are saying (and I agree) is that proof is the conclusion drawn from evidence, providing that the conclusion is warranted by sufficient evidence (provided that the evidence, as they say, is conclusive).

When I say the Bible is not evidence, it is not because it doesn't contain arguments in favor of its ideas, flawed and inconsistent and often illogical though they may be. It is because one does not refer to a claimant's claims as evidence for its own claims.

You are playing word games to deflect from the basic fact that you have a huge mountain of assertions but not an iota of valid, admissible evidence to support them.

You disbelieve in all the deities put forth by religion, save one. I don't believe in even the single one you believe in.

You have no better reason to afford belief to Jesus than you do to Vishnu or the Buddha or to Thor. Other than that you are accustomed to / probably raised on Jesus and are invested in Jesus. Vishnu and Buddha and Thor have their written and oral traditions, their believers, their assertions, their miracle claims and legends, just like Jesus does. Why do you follow Jesus? If you're honest, you'll have to admit that if you'd been born in Tibet, you'd most likely be a Tibetan Buddhist, and not a Christian. You would know nothing of Christianity. You are what you are because it's what you were indoctrinated with. Not because it's compelling or unique. The vast majority of Christians do not chose Christ over other gods, they just run with what they are aware of.