Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[SteveII]

Why don't you think the events of the NT happened? Here is why I do--go ahead and prove me wrong.

Inductive line of reasoning:

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
c. They presided over the early church
d. This early church instructed Paul
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)
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)
THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.

Before you jump all over some of the statements above, please realize 1) you do not have proof against any of them (finding someone to agree with you is not proof) and 2) it is inductive reasoning and therefore it is not claiming the list is proof of anything--it is only claiming the inference is reasonable. It is NOT a deductive argument which claims fact, fact, therefore fact. So it is a matter of opinion whether you think the list supports the conclusion or not.

Why might one believe the inference? Like I said many time, it is part of a cumulative case. There are a host of reasons not related to the NT why one might be less skeptical than you.

a. Jesus probably existed, just like several of the wandering preachers both before and after him. That doesn't mean the stories associated with him are true.

b. c. The problem is that we have no actual writings from either of them. We have some writings *attributed* to them, but given the way that writings were made up in the second century, their validity is very suspect.

Well, Peter, James and John did write NT books. So, there goes that point. 

d. - g. The problem here is that we only have one side of the story. We *know* that Paul's interpretation was very different than the rest of the early church. We *know* that many in the early church did not believe in a literal resurrection.

No, we do not know that Paul's interpretation was different. That is a red herring repeated by people who don't know what they are talking about. The entire NT was written over a period of 50 years, at least nine authors wrote 27 books containing no less than 55 major doctrines and 180 doctrinal concepts centered on one figure – Jesus Christ. There is no internal conflict in the NT. 

We have Acts, written independently by Luke. There is no question the churches existed. They are written about all through later first and second century manuscripts. The early church MOST DEFINITELY believed in the literal resurrection. It was spelled out in the second paragraph of the earliest written epistle--1 Thessalonians. 

h. - k. Some did and some did not. There were many differing stories from very early on. This alone decreases the strength of your position.  In particular, from very early on, there was strong disagreement about whether Jesus was actually human, whether there was an actual resurrection, just how much he differed from other wandering preachers in that area, etc.

I think you imagine there were first century documents that told different stories. There weren't. You scenario of what was what in the first century is way off and your counter argument lacks any evidence. 

When we consider the weight of the evidence, including the evidence counter to your position and together with the long line of superstitious beliefs in the Roman empire and in that region in particular, we have to admit that it is very unlikely that the stories that have come down to us are accurate and not tainted by later political intrigues.

You don't have "counter evidence". You allude to it but it does not exist.