When is a Religious Belief Delusional?

[Pat Mustard]

@ Steve and his "evidence" for god.

P1. Miraculous effects have been specifically attributed to God (a supernatural being). Example, the paralytic healed by Jesus: "Mark 2:10...but I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all...". There are a hundred such examples in the NT where supernatural causation was declared or unmistakably inferred from the context.
P2. The resurrected Jesus was seen by as many as 500 people. Recently crucified people do not walk around and declare that they have conquered death and provided a way for man's redemption and as such, this is an obvious, rather big, supernatural claim.
In support of P1 and P2, we have the following:
a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry (every other NT writer)
c. They presided over the early church (Paul, Acts, first/second century docs)
d. This early church instructed Paul (Paul, Acts)
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written). We can infer from this the source of these beliefs were a critical mass of people who believed these events really happened which actually prompted immediate and significant action on their part--to evangelize the Roman world.
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
l. Alternate theories of the NT and early church provenance lack explanatory power of the evidence on all sorts of levels
P3. The main promise of the NT is a series of specific supernatural effects on a person
P4. An untold number of people have reported such effects
P5. An untold number of people have reported minor miracles (defined as person-oriented miracles for which the goal is very narrow -- as opposed to the NT miracles which had broad application and goals). Ranges from healing, bringing about events/experiences/encounters/open doors, extraordinary strength/peace/perseverance, evangelistic success, etc.
P6. The question why anything at all exists has no naturalistic explanation (and most likely none forthcoming).
P7. The question of why the universe exists has no metaphysically sound naturalistic explanation. There is no reason to think one will be forthcoming.
P8. The question of why our universe has the narrow range of physical constants which seem necessary to form matter and conserve energy but under naturalism has no other explanation than fantastically amazing chance that would not be accepted in any other case.
P9. The question of why our minds seem non-physical but have causal powers over the physical undercuts hard naturalism and seems to have parallels to the concept of the supernatural (not that they are necessarily supernatural).
P10. The question of why there seems to exist a knowledge of basic morality in most people and most people believe it to be based on an objective set of principles (moral Platonism) not derived from any evolutionary process.
P11. There is physical evidence for the supernatural (from P1, P2)
P12. There is a persistent, growing, unbroken chain of personal reports of the supernatural (from P4, P5)
P13. There are reason to think that naturalism is an insufficient worldview and the existence of the supernatural has better explanatory powers in a variety of these gaps. (from P6, P7, P8, P9, P10)

P1 and P2 are both unsupported claims made by anonymous persons who lived long after the alleged events too place. Steve still does not grasp the principle of you can't support the claim by citing the claim as your evidence. Oh and a bonus, the reason why "early" writings agree with later ones was because when the churches coalesced in the 300's all writings were made to agree.

Ps 3 to 5 is yet more unsubstantiated assertion. Note how Steve gives no specific instances of prediction (despite saying that specific predictions were made) or of them being fulfilled. He has no actual evidence of his assertion.

P6 & P7 is Steve's personal belief and is contrary to established fact. I have a perfectly sound naturalistic explanation for my existence based on cosmology and evolutionary biology. It is not complete, but explains my existence infinitely better and more accurately than Steve's goddidit.

P8 is stating the anthropic fallacy of "the universe was created to allow us to exist". Sorry Steve, but we're not special. We're not tye reason for the universe's existence we're a consequence of it, an incidental little detail on a pale blue dot.

P9 is a straight out lie. Our minds are 100% physical, they are a consequence of our brain structure and emergent complexities of same.

P10 Morality doesn't come from a higher being, it is an emergent property of our species being a social animal. Look at any animal that exists in groups and you will see a moral animal.

P11 is false, as Ps 1&2 are unevidenced assertions of anonymous authors writing long after the fact. Notice the big gap here from Steve's claim to his conclusion. He wants you to forget that he hasn't substantiated his claim, and therefore accept uncritically his faulty conclusion.

P12 is false for the same reason as P11.

P13 is P8 with different words. Just because a few terms are changed, it doesn't follow that the arguement is suddenly validated.

Conclusion, the "evidence" is so bad and so horribly presented it doesn't even rise to failure. Steve get's a No Grade for his submission.