Four proofs of the nonexistence of God

[SteveII]

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 you made up something about your pink elephant, no it would still not be worthy of consideration--because you made it up. 

What causal effect on the natural world do angels and God have? Well, Jesus was a pretty big one--you know, dying for all of humanity. People have given testimony (which is evidence) that they have received messages or assistance in time of crisis from angels. You can choose to believe them or not. Your belief has nothing to do with the truth of the matter. Whether a person can 'substantiate' their claim or not have nothing to do with the truth of the matter. There is no evidential, logical, nor scientific reason you can stand behind and make the counterclaim: "that didn't happen. 

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.

No, it is evidence they believed the claims. They either were eyewitnesses or believed the eyewitnesses. They were either the evidence or believed the evidence presented to them. Since many were Jewish, their belief represented a 180 degree turn from the faith of their community families. So to characterize it as "interesting/compelling" does not capture the 

Even the famed Bart Ehrman believes that the NT is better than 99% of what it was originally. The dating of every one of the letters/gospels has been established long before any formal church. 

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.

Read the 27 letters and histories of the NT. If you think that is not evidence, than you have to deny that any historical account anywhere in the world at any time before electronic recordings were possible as 'not evidence'. If you are making a special case for the NT, well, that's just special pleading. Further, if you are saying because of the content of the NT (extraordinary claims and all) you don't believe them to be evidence, that is simply circular reasoning: there is no evidence for miracles, the NT does not count because it contains miracles. 

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. [1]

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.[2] 

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

1.1- 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.
1.2- The gospels and Acts catalog the claim. The balance are letters discussing and applying the claim.
1.3- The NT consists of 27 different documents written over 50 years time (give or take). It's a little bit of an understatement 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).


2. Christianity is better evidenced, internally consistent, and addresses the major questions of life better than any other religion, ever. And each and every year, a vast number of people freely choose Christianity as adult--more than do any other religion and atheism.