Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[GrandizerII]

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.

This is such horrible reasoning, and you know it, Steve. Claims made in a book don't indicate truth just because they're in a book you happen to hold sacred. You have to consider the theological biases the authors may have held in writing these books. You can't just argue it's in the book, therefore supernatural God. That's ridiculous.

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.

Claim, exactly. One that fits a theological agenda and isn't corroborated by external non-Christian sources. Even the earlier copies of Mark didn't say that the risen Jesus was witnessed by anyone! Furthermore, the 500 figure is only found in one of the books of the Bible. Paul could've just made the number up, knowing that no one who had already believed was going to challenge him on this. Note he never mentions any of their names, so how are you going to question any of them if you don't know who to go to to ask?

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)

Well, this is news. What "other sources" would those be exactly, pray tell?

b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry (every other NT writer)

Suppose this were true, the odds are low that we have works written by the Peter and John you speak of, so we most probably don't have first-hand testimonies of what they witnessed during Jesus' three-year ministry. As for James, read his Epistle, and tell me if there's anything in there that lends credence to the account of the resurrection. Hint: you wont find any because no mention is made of the resurrection of Jesus!

c. They presided over the early church (Paul, Acts, first/second century docs)
d. This early church instructed Paul (Paul, Acts)

Big deal. This doesn't lend much support whatsoever to the supernatural. Also, the authenticity of Acts is severely questioned by critical scholars.

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.

What claims exactly? You need to be more specific and detailed on what you're referring to here if your intention is not to mislead. I mean, the eyewitness testimonies of Jesus weren't mentioned in the earlier copies of Mark, and neither the virgin birth nor Bethlehem being the birthplace of Jesus were ever mentioned in any of the authentic Pauline Epistles. In addition, belief that the claims were true does not indicate that the claims were actually true. And all it takes is the belief itself to motivate believers to evangelize to people.

f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels

Uh, no. Read my response to your point b.

g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day

Very questionable that this is true.

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)

Even if true, doesn't mean they must've known each other in person.

i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book

Not necessarily.

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.

Too vague. What claims exactly? And are you implying they didn't disagree at all from the start regarding any aspect of the gospels?

k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)

lol ... what? No, there are clear differences between the teachings of Paul and the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels. And what the hell do you mean by the last part of that statement?

l. Alternate theories of the NT and early church provenance lack explanatory power of the evidence on all sorts of levels

Oh, really? Are you sure you've gone through the whole list of alternatives here? Or did you just cherry pick one or two to consider, and then conveniently declare you pet theory to be the winner?

Given the fallacies and scant information in your points, I have to say your theory doesn't quite measure up, and it fails to explain why (for example) the early copies of Mark didn't mention anything about the risen Jesus being witnessed, or why the virgin birth of Jesus and his birthplace in Bethlehem weren't brought up anywhere except in the nativity accounts in both Matthew and Luke, these accounts clearly contradicting each other in so many ways.

P3. The main promise of the NT is a series of specific supernatural effects on a person

Means jack shit.

P4. An untold number of people have reported such effects

Who? The unnamed, and therefore the unquestioned? You need to provide clear examples here to support your point because this isn't a mundane claim.

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.

Examples? Because we can provide satisfactory naturalistic science-based explanations for a lot of these incidents. The placebo effect being a prime example.

P6. The question why anything at all exists has no naturalistic explanation (and most likely none forthcoming).

Says who? Also, have you also ever asked yourself why your pet god exists? Or do you only ask that of entities for which you haven't set yourself to commit special pleading in favor of?

P7. The question of why the universe exists has no metaphysically sound naturalistic explanation. There is no reason to think one will be forthcoming.

I.E., code phrase for "I don't want to accept any naturalistic explanations for why anything exists".

Here's an alternative theory for you: The universe exists necessarily. It requires no external explanation. Hence, no need for your pet god.

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.

Here's one possible answer: modal realism. Everything that's possible is actual.

Are you really going to pretend now that you haven't encountered the various counter arguments before on this very forum?

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).

Yet, the neurological science points to the mind/consciousness being a function of the physical brain, regardless of whatever mysteries surrounding it. Via Bayesian reasoning, we can conclude that at this stage, given our current level and and body of knowledge, that naturalism is more likely given this fact than supernaturalism.

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.

From Wikipedia (Morality):
The development of modern morality is a process closely tied to sociocultural evolution. Some evolutionary biologists, particularly sociobiologists, believe that morality is a product of evolutionary forces acting at an individual level and also at the group level through group selection (although to what degree this actually occurs is a controversial topic in evolutionary theory). Some sociobiologists contend that the set of behaviors that constitute morality evolved largely because they provided possible survival or reproductive benefits (i.e. increased evolutionary success). Humans consequently evolved "pro-social" emotions, such as feelings of empathy or guilt, in response to these moral behaviors.

Also, have you polled these "most people"? Or just making shit up as usual?

P11. There is physical evidence for the supernatural (from P1, P2)

Really? Where? I didn't note any physical evidence for the supernatural in P1 or P2.

P12. There is a persistent, growing, unbroken chain of personal reports of the supernatural (from P4, P5)

And you can find some explanations for all that in such fields as social psychology and psychopathology.

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)

If so, you haven't done a good job at showing us that naturalism is an insufficient worldview. And ad hoc God explanations suffer heaps of problems that naturalism does not suffer.