Four proofs of the nonexistence of God

[SteveII]

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. [1] The more fantastical the account and the more unknown the authors and so forth, the more corroboration is needed. [2] 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. [3]

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. [4]

1. I agree that the more evidence the merrier. There were churches spread across the Roman Empire prior to the gospels and the letters of Paul being written that believed the basic message that would later be cataloged in the gospels.  The reason I keep bringing this up is that we are not just talking about "accounts". There is a body of evidence that not only explains the claim in detail (the Gospels), discusses practical living issues (the epistles), but there is also plenty of impact in the actual world that can be traced in an unbroken chain from today to within a few years of Jesus.

2. The better test is to discuss the probability of the evidence you see if the events had not transpired as reported. Also, there is no conflicting/rebutting evidence. No group of eyewitnesses ever came forward and reported that they were there and these things didn't happen and, no one ever mentions/refers such a group. 

3. You are listing evidence that may or may not have existed--you don't know. Nearly all historical documents are lost to time. The reason the NT books have been preserved so well is that a group of people existed that cared greatly if they we preserved or not. Most ancient documents do not engender such feelings.
 
4. I would expect to see inconsistencies in the Gospels for two reasons. First, if they are all identical, it smacks of collusion or conspiracy. Second, in much of the ancient times, events and writings were not recorded with newspaper-like precision. 

Regardless of your opinion on the evidence, you are talking about assessing the evidence needed to satisfy your personal threshold for proof. I understand that is not the case for you. But the evidence has been sufficient for billions of others. 

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.

Well, since it was written 454 years after Buddha's death, you can hardly say that eyewitnesses were instrumental in the recording of those events. 

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.

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.

Question begging. The only reason you are saying they are not 'properly substantiated' is because of the miraculous content. 

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.

Who said the gospels were anonymously written? Do you think that the person who wrote it out the first time was not known to the recipients of the written document? The fact that we do not know the editors' names simply means the editors were not considered important to the matter. What was important was the original disciple (and his disciples) that provided some or all of the content. Luke was clear where he was coming from. If the editors wrote down eyewitness accounts, what we have are eyewitness accounts. 

If you actually study systematic theology, the gospels do not disagree with each other and with Paul on matters of theology. 

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.

Christianity is better evidenced than any other religion. In addition to the 27 books of the NT, there are hundreds of other documents that have survived from within 2 generations of Jesus. Tell me another religions that had even a 10th of the real-world evidence/effect immediately following it's founder, individual writings from contemporaries (other than the founder), and unbroken chain of written history going back 2000 years. 

http://earlychristianwritings.com/

Islam is a poor comparison. Entire cultures/countries/people groups are required on pain of death/imprisonment/family banishment to adhere to Islam. My point was and is that vast numbers of adults find the message and evidence of Christianity compelling. You are not getting your message out!!