Do Christians have faith in oxygen/air?

[possibletarian]

The events of the NT are exactly what you are asking for. Then you simply say that "does not count". Your measurement is entirely subjective and based on the content because it does not matter what you say, if there were two more books in the NT with two more people, you would have the same answer. I don't care if you don't find my list a through k compelling--it is evidence of the existence of God. It might not meet your standard for individual proof--because 1) your standard is more skeptical, 2) you really don't know exactly what you are talking about with the NT, or 3) because you have a bias (or most likely a combination of the three). 

Frankly Steve they are not exactly hat I was looking for, accounts of miraculous happenings, from miraculous creatures that one of many religions claim but fail to prove simply is not evidence, unless of course you already believe.

Of course you don't care that I don't find you list compelling, why would you? In exactly the same way as a Muslim, Buddhist, Mormon, Jew, Hindu, the list could go on, none of those would find my scepticism of their faith and holy writings compelling. They also would claim I was not knowing what I was talking about, biased and blind and a combination of all three.

There are billions who will tell you their experiences are real. Are you going to accept that? Are you going to accept that minor miracle happen every day? No, you have dismissed that body of evidence with a little circular reasoning: experiences are not real because there is no supernatural, therefore there is no evidence of the supernatural.

And there are billions of religious people in other religions that will tell me their experiences are real, A Muslim, Jew, Hindu and so on.
I personally doubt i will ever meet billions of people to prove that claim, suffice it to say many religious people have experiences that they are willing to share. It's not so much that I doubt they have had experiences, after all I had many experiences when I was a Christian, but now see through them.

We were both right. An angel separately showed the plates to the other three. We are right back to individual experiences with nothing public for people to witness. A very very different category of claim altogether from the NT. 

Regardless lots of witnesses, that we can  1) Name (we know they lived)  2) what they looked like  3) we knew where they came from and their history, even their families. In an evidential sense it's way more compelling that the mystery surrounding the gospels,
But I suspect just like the gospels, and lacking other evidence, a lie.
And again a religion spawned from it that is alive today, who testify to miracles and experiences.

Being the most examined does not make anything true
Kind of throws cold water on the argument that "well, we just don't know about the sources..."

In what way? the statement is absolutely true regardless.

Nobody is denying that a teacher called Jesus lived and started a cult just like nobody denies that Joseph Smith or Mohamed existed
Or that the authorities of the time regarded it as a cult. The only real account of Jesus himself outside the bible Joesphus, is thought to have been tampered with by the early church making it very unreliable.  And that from stories rather than personal experience.


But now aren't we relying on the bible to  prove the bible, without first proving the bible to be an accurate true account. ?  
It's clear even from Lukes account  (Synoptic) Gospel that it is a copied account of what he was already told, and he had prepared a copy of other stories, the Synoptic gospels cannot be regarded as accumulative evidence. Nor were any of the gospels written from a first person perspective, nor is there anything in the narrative to suggest even that the authors expected any reader to believe that

Ah, but you are just spouting off subjective requirements of the gospels. The fact remains that there were 4 gospels that were accepted by the first and second century church as accurate.

As was the book of Mormon, The Quran and I'm sure other teaching too, the fact that early Christians believed means little given the abundance of religions and cults  throughout the world.

They would have know the provenance of each. There is also a lot of evidence of earlier writings from textual critics (like Q). There is also the twin series of facts that Paul enunciates the gospel message in his letters long before the gospels were written and there were multiple churches that existed across the Roman empire that believed these thing--long before the gospels. Another fact is that all the gospels were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses and rebuttal witnesses. The cumulative case is very solid despite your subjective requirements imposed after the fact.

The earliest we have is about the year 70. some time after the death of the character of the story way beyond the time where people would write rebuttals or could be said to have recollected an account of the life of Jesus, by that time the myth of Jesus would be well established.
His own people didn't believe him and had him executed, isn't that rebuttal enough ?  

It's a bit like me copying the story of Mohamed popping a few things of my own in there, and then claiming greater credibility simply because more than one account exists.. it's utter nonsense. 

That's a huge assertion with no evidence. 

Yes, now you know how we feel about your assertions.

Well it would seem logical that the evidence of a god that does miracles would be, well miracles, or am i missing something ?
Many religions claim miracles from their chosen deity, should we believe those too, simply because they are claimed ?   


Depends how many claim to have seen them and over what time period, was there a greater context for the claims, what were the odds of seeing the after-effect if there were not any miracles (multiple writings, mobilization of large numbers of people, established churches that repeated the claim within a decade or two--despite persecution), what was in it for the people who repeated the claim, and lastly, what was the underlying message of the claim (was the message compelling and instructed love/respect/self-sacrifice/and humility)?

Sorry Steve that was word salad, so do many other religions and Christian was not the first and wont be the last religiously indoctrinated people to hold to their faith despite being persecuted.  Nor is it the only one that claims peace and love as it's prize.

To ask for evidence though is just plain sensible, asking for evidence of such a living god, don't forget you are not claiming a god who just did miracles then, but also one that does miracles now.

answered all this in my statements above.

 

You think ?

No, that is a simple statement of fact: these are the most written about (from the actual period) series of events -- 27 documents describing a time period spanning 70 or so years. AND then we have unbroken series of documents from the first century on to today--making sure there is no revisionist history.

So why mention it at all, it bears no witness to the truth of what is said. 

Most re-written or studied does not mean more evidence, it means they were fantastic stories even in a world riddled with ridiculous beliefs.

Not re-written. The NT is though by scholars to be as much as 99% as the original--with the differences being non-theology related.

Yes, but again that does not make it  true. And of course it worth noting that many writings of that time were destroyed and it took a while for an official cannon to be recognised, by that time only books that were in agreement with church doctrine of the time were kept.

And yet again none of this is witness to the truth of scripture

You mean people who believe ? that's only evidence that people believed something, not a argument for it's truth, again it's like saying X Billion have believed, therefore it must be true, such nonsense.

Many other religions claim many miracles for many gods throughout history, should we believe them also ?


You keep bringing that up like it's an answer. To what are you referring to? I can't show you why you are wrong when you pose vague comparisons.

I'm not the one claiming miracles, you are. I don't believe they happen just that many claim them, Show me a single miracle with evidence

It points to the nature of the god you claim to serve in the same book you count as evidence, is it therefore wrong of us to expect that all these attributes should be true (if your god exists) and that there should be evidence of them being true.?

Yes, you should expect they are true (as I said). The list is not proof or even evidence. It is a description of God--which to even consider would require belief in God. I continue to fail to see your point.

It's a description of a very active god, but alas, the world carries on ..just as if there is no god.
And what's more his disciples rely on 2,000 year old writings.

Bottom line Steve is that a 'Mighty God' should not require the weak lame excuses that his supporters give to prove his existence, that fact that he requires these weak arguments is testament to the kind of god he is.. a created one.