Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[SteveII]

Hawking Radiation for one example of "Something from exnihilo"

Along with spontaneous nuclear fission for things happening without causes.

I'm not sure you are serious. You think a black hole is "nothing"?

Radioactive decay is "uncaused"? It is supposed that there are no physical laws governing nuclear bonds?

---

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.

Sorry, Steve, but I do not have to provide proof against any of the statements you made above because every one of them is an unsubstantiated allegation. You are dishonestly attempting to shift the burden of proof. Try again.

Sorry, once you say "every one of them is an unsubstantiated allegation" you have made a positive claim and you need to provide some evidence. All we seem to have is my documents, historical evidence, logical deductions and inferences verses your assertions that they are not what they claim to be. Congrats on the misstep. Question is, can you back up your claim? Or, do you want to modify your position to something like "I am not convinced by your evidence"--which gives you what you want--no burden of proof.