Four proofs of the nonexistence of God

[Astonished]

Well we don't think that a three-legged squid descended from heaven 3000 years ago to enlighten humanity, despite that no one ever came forward and said it DIDN'T happen.

In any case you may be surprised to find out that I contend that we are living in a world where these events DIDN'T transpire as reported. Unlike you I am not in the least impressed that people believe something that is concocted. Happens all the time. Leeches my friend, leeches. Common belief is no evidence that the belief is true. Even the canard that people are willing to die for a belief is no evidence that it's true (witness Islamic suicide bombers).

I'm sure that's what you think. However, the probability of all the events following Christ's death/resurrection (people, churches, Q, letters, gospels, second century writers, etc.) happening as they did are very low if the events did not happen as related. I have never heard a good evidenced explanation from an atheist why we see what we do. Just half-baked conspiracy theories and "people where gullible back then" scenarios. Neither addressing hardly any of the details.  

It is insufficient for tens of millions of others too. Neither fact speaks to the validity of the evidence or the arguments pro and con.

If I made the argument that the facts are true because billions of people believed, then you point is correct. I did not, so it does not apply to my point. 

Absent your low bar of what constitutes an "eyewitness" neither can you.

Do you honestly think there is a comparison to be made between the historicity of the events of Jesus (and aftermath) and that of Buddha? 454 years is 18 generations of people relating stories before someone wrote it all down. Paul was sharpening his pencil to write to the pre-existing churches across the empire, pre-gospel document(s) existed, and people were going on missionary journeys to tell of their eyewitness experience 18 years after Jesus. 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary substantiation. That is a basic principle. If I claim to be married, that's not extraordinary and you're inclined to accept it as fact unless and until you know something that argues against it. But if I claim to be married to a woman who turns water into wine and rose from the dead, you'd be disinclined to believe it until you know something that argues FOR it.

It is not a basic principle! While it sounds intuitive, it is not well-grounded. First, 'extraordinary' is very subjective and has to do with what a person knows or believes. In the extreme example of a person knowing nothing, everything would be extraordinary. Second, it is simple probability theory that you can examine what is the probability of having the effect of a miracle (say hundreds of eyewitnesses see X) if the event they witnessed did not really happen.  Third, you are still question begging because you are discounting eyewitness testimony for the only reason that you believe miracles are not possible. We are justified in preferring a naturalistic explanation--all things being equal. We are not justified in insisting on one. 

Other than by traditional attribution we have no idea who wrote the gospels. That's a simple fact. They aren't known to US who are examining the claims NOW.

You fail to explain why a name is important. Do you think the documents were secretly left on the doorstep of someone and were stumbled upon in the morning? Of course the people who first read and copied them knew the provenance. It was the content that was important. Labeling them "anonymous" is inaccurate and intentionally pejorative. 

I was raised on Lewis Sperry Chafer's Systematic Theology and I know all the circumlocutions around the disagreements of FACT. As to disagreements of theology, there are enough disagreements between Paul and the gospels alone to drive a truck through. Read the oldest of Paul's writings and then work through the NT chronologically and pretend while reading Paul, that you're a contemporary reader who is unaware of the gospels (because they don't exist yet). Here you have Paul appealing, not to eyewitnesses that (unlike later when the gospels appeared) were still mostly alive and yet to who or what does Paul appeal to "authenticate" his claims? A personal subjective experience, a heavenly vision. Odd. And how does he describe Jesus? As "seated in the heavenlies" No mention of the later mythos of the flesh-and-blood god-man working miracles. It's almost like Paul was promulgating the gnostic heresy and a different orthodoxy later won out over it. These contrasts between Paul and the gospel accounts would have been confusing to people in the 1st century but when the canon of scripture was eventually organized, by the simple device of putting the gospels first, front, and center, Paul can be interpreted in the "context" of the much later gospel writings and thus "harmonized" with them based on assumptions that didn't exist for Paul's original readers.

What were the main theological differences between Paul and Jesus that can't be understood thought the entirety of the Gospels or of Paul's letters (in other words, in context).

Paul was not writing to unbelievers. Why would he appeal to eyewitnesses? The people he was talking to were or knew eyewitnesses. 

It seems the people he was writing did not become as confused as you as to his message, purpose, and authority. But if you want to give a specific example, I will consider it.

How do you fit all those red herrings up your ass? Is it like the TARDIS in there?