Four proofs of the nonexistence of God

[mordant]

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.

Well in 2000 years I suppose the fact that was made up will seem less relevant to you somehow but it is still just a claim and you haven't demonstrated how the claim would be distinguished from human imagination -- yours, others, the church's, whatever.

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.

My contention is not that it didn't happen, though it's highly unlikely for various reasons that I've elucidated elsewhere. My contention is that there isn't good reason to afford belief to it.

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

Looks like your thought got cut off there, but let me just say that people throughout history believe all sorts of things and that's no evidence at all that it's true. Reference my discussion of bleeding with leeches.

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.

Unlike many unbelievers I have no issue with this statement about the fidelity of the manuscripts. I used to be an evangelical Christian and I have some formal training in matters theological (not much, but more than most -- a year at Bible Institute) and so I understand how manuscripts are compared and what can be deduced from that and so forth. I do not advance the argument that the Bible as we have it today in the original languages is substantially off the rails from the original manuscripts. I feel there are far more serious problems with the content than there is with whether we can be sure of the content.

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.

Historians will tell you that to determine the accuracy of an account, many factors must be taken into account and many sources compared. The more fantastical the account and the more unknown the authors and so forth, the more corroboration is needed. I'm not making a special argument for scripture other than to the extent it's making special claims ... like any other document it has to be independently corroborated, preferably by sources with no skin in the game. For example, if an earthquake struck Jerusalem after the crucifixion and resurrected corpses roamed Jerusalem, it would be nice if secular historians and/or government sources documented this remarkable event. You know, an account of the repair of the temple veil, an account of the un-inheritance of the descendants of dead people who are no longer dead, a receipt for masonry for earthquake repairs, anything would help. Yet there is ... nothing.

I suspect you may keep referring to the NT as "the 27 letters and histories" because you're going to claim they corroborate each other, which is a slippery slope for you to go down considering the many inconsistencies between them.

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.

The NT contains claims that miracles happen. That does not constitute evidence or contribute to proof. The Pali Canon attributes miracles to the Buddha; it contains miracles; yet I very much doubt you believe them just because they're there.

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.[/quote]
I never said there isn't a lot of exposition based on the claims, but the exposition means nothing if the claims aren't worthy of belief because they aren't properly substantiated.

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).

The gospels were written anonymously beginning some 35 years (and, in the case of John, some 65 years) after the alleged events. They disagree with each other and even fare more so with the Pauline writings, which are much older. They are not eyewitness accounts, although they claim to rely on eyewitness accounts. Again, though, the claims are extraordinary and I'm sorry but the burden of proof is far greater than someone writing about, I don't know, the edicts of Caesar or something.

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.

You really do like to make assertions ... do you have any citations?

My take is that Christianity has had 2,000 years to present its supposedly compelling value proposition and has, even by the most charitable standards (cultural Christians) less than one third penetration worldwide, and has ceded the title of fastest-growing religion to Islam, which is set to overtake it in this century. So if this "more people switch to Christianity than any other religion" business is true, it is ignoring the vast numbers BORN INTO religions, rather than simply converting; this is far and away the main source of new adherents, and that goes for Christianity as well.