Street Epistemology - Practice

[RoadRunner79]

I would say that all the evidence contributes to the high confidence.  However it is because of the historical accounts, that I am a Christian rather than just a deist.  I see a difference in the Judeo/Christian tradition, that I don't see in other religions.  It is a part of and dependent on history more than others.  Written by forty authors, in multiple geographies over many centuries.  It's events are often in public and frequently encourages it's immediate readers to remember back to their experiences.  It often encourages it's audience to test it. 

For the Gospel, we have 4 people who wrote accounts of Jesus ministry.  We have the letters from other apostles and disciples who wrote to the early Church, and tradition where a number of Churches where started by those who knew Jesus.  These all support the history of the Gospel.  I have read a number of the anti-Nicene Fathers of the church.  They both speak of and quote the apostles and the writings that proceed them.  Which continues further down the chain of history through each generation.  And especially in the early history, you will see a focus on that historical connection to Jesus and the apostles.  To hold on to what they where taught and in some cases seen. 

You can get into more detail, J. Warner Wallace (LA cold case homicide detective) was a self described aggressive atheist for 35 years of his life.   He talks quite a bit of his training and experience with witnesses, and why he now believes the Gospel accounts are true.  I'm currently reading a book on "undesigned coincidences" where there may be a subtle question  raised in one writing, and it is unintentionally answered in another.  Some of these would have meant little to the immediate audience or wouldn't have been questioned at all, so it seems unlikely to be by designed and would be remarkable to be by accident. 

Now different details may carry different weight.  Some evidence may only provide a slight strength.  However when I look at all the evidence, then my confidence level is fairly strong.

To be honest, this kind of feels like a detective case that we're trying to solve and it's a bit information dense for me but I'll have a go at it.
I've had a bit of a look at what you've written above and from what I understand, the way that you present your evidence is the following.

God exists because:

1. The Gospels were created through (or assisted by) God's Magic.
   
2. The Gospels says that Jesus (God) exists and details accounts of Jesus's (God's) magic.
   
3. The Gospels must be true as it is historically accurate.
   
4. The Gospels accuracy is further corroborated by ancient Jews (from J. Warner Wallace) and from other historic figures who say that Jesus existed and that they saw his magic.
   
5. The book "Undesigned coincidences" shows that there is a consistent flow between the Gospels (through connecting a subtle question in one writing to an answer in another writing) which can't be a coincidence as it connects well. This shows that the Gospels were designed holistically thus proving their authenticity.
   

Other evidence don't prove God exists but as you have proven god exists with the above evidence it follows that:

1. The generic philosophical arguments (such as cosmological, ontological, and moral arguments); And 
   
2. Scientific arguments (such as strong anthromorphic principle, and intelligent design);
   

must be because of God.


Is that a good summary? If not please amend it and we will assess the evidence and talk through it.

Unfortunately, this is not a summary, that I would agree with much at all. It is curious, that you used the word "magic", a number of times, when I didn't appeal to anything of the sort. Why is that? To be honest, it feels more like your view of Christians, than a summary of what I had said. If you are confused by something, perhaps we can narrow it down some. Now my understanding of Street Epistemology, is that it is not to debate the facts, but to look at the epistemology or how we know. It is more general, and about the methods, rather than the specifics. Is there some epistemological concern, that you suspect in regards to my belief in God? I would think that in discussing the epistemology, that it is more like what we where talking about before (moving the goal posts for that which you do not want to believe). Or perhaps it would be better to make it more specific, there is a lot of interconnected evidence to consider on such a broad topic, as believing in God. (Would you prefer to just discuss the resurrection perhaps)?.

Some notes on your other comments: You description on the undersigned coincidences, doesn't seem to be too bad. As to the more general philosophical and scientific arguments, I don't think, that they are dependent on the historical evidence at all. They stand on their own, and If I where convinced that Christianity wasn't true, I would likely be a deist, because of these. I'm not saying that they are not as strong in their own, but only that they do not speak to some things.