Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[polymath257]

P1 and P2: Just  because we have a *story* that some strange things occurred doesn't mean we have evidence of it. We also have to weigh the likelihood of the story being accurate. In this case, it is quite low.teh story was written well after the purported events, gathered by people motivated to support their positions, and approved of by a Roman emperor. That doesn't help the case.

First, how do you think we acquire ALL historical information? Everything is evidence of something.

We also get historical evidence from archaeological investigations, monuments, etc. Writings are often the *least* reliable source of historical information and must *always* be treated skeptically, especially as regards to the motives of the authors.

Second, you need to address why Paul was writing letters less than 20 years after Jesus to churches all over the Roman empire that BELIEVED the events that the gospels would LATER catalog. The ONLY explanation is that there existed a group of people that believed the events immediately after Jesus' resurrection.

Remember that those across the empire would not have had direct knowledge of the events in Jerusalem. Most believers only believed because of hearsay evidence. The travel times were long and travel was dangerous. Paul himself never saw Jesus (except in a delusion). Given that he clearly made up much of the story, that those he told believed him isn't any evidence of the actual events.

Third, your reference to what happened in the third century is a red herring--we are talking about what happened in the first century.

Not at all. There were many different accounts of the events, ranging from those eventually adopted as canonical to those that were much more bizarre.

P3-P5: People being delusional and misinterpreting coincidences isn't evidence. Predicting that people will do so isn't evidence either.

Serious question begging.

Not at all. The superstitious nature of the society makes *any* story along this line less believable from the start. That there were also violations of physical laws only confirms the impossibility.

if anything, you resort to special pleading in all of this.

P6-P10: all argue from a position of ignorance and actually don't provide evidence for a deity either way. They are just-so stories that don't affect the probabilities.

So...there exists another explanation for these things!? Do tell. Seems to me the Christian worldview has built into it way more explanatory power than naturalism--and it is not 'just so'--it is foundation to the worldview--if there is a God, OF COURSE he created the universe. 

The funny thing is that you think that even if you can't put your finger on an explanation--one will be forthcoming. It literally seems impossible that anything we dream up get's past the "first cause" problem.

The problem is that invoking deities *does not* actually give an explanation either. Since deities could be consistent with *anything*, they don't explain anything.

 P11: Simply wrong

Assertion based on question-begging reasoning.

P12-P13: both based on fallacies. Since there is equal counter-evidence, the net effect is zero, or even against the position you hold.

No, there are no fallacies here--if you think so, name them. You have failed to explain away the evidence we have so we only have your question-begging assertions or mischaracterizations to compare my list to.

Special pleading.

The point is that we *know* that people are superstitious and prone to interpret coincidences and low probability events in a supernatural light. The fact that people generally interpret such in light of their local superstition gives evidence *against* the existence of deities that far outweighs the claims made *for* their existence: the net effect is that deities are *less* likely. 

Again, the net effect of ALL of your claims is to make something incredibly unlikely still incredibly unlikely.

More question begging. In every case above you have already assumed the event/experience did not happen and are a result of superstition. That's not a counter argument.

Given the violations of physical law, that isn't much of a leap, now is it? How reliable were these people and were they reliable enough to say that they really observed such violations? or, is it just possible they were mistaken? Which is more likely?

---

Not at all. I am not using frequency statistics for this evaluation, except as evidence for how gullible people can be.

The problem however is, that just because something doesn't happen frequently, doesn't give you any evidence for your claim.  That doesn't follow from showing that the occurrence is rare, that someone is gullible for believing it.... that's just bad logic,  as shown by the equivocation.

But that they believe physical laws were violated *does* show them to be gullible. that is *by far* the more reasonable explanation, don't you think?