Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[SteveII]

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.

No, I don't, Steve. You have provided no proof that any of your statements is true. That's a self-evident fact, which I have pointed out. Your "logical" deductions begin with unsubstantiated CLAIMS. Ergo, your entire argument falls apart like a house of cards. Your CLAIMS are not convincing or valid because you have not backed them up with historical evidence. Again, you are dishonestly attempting to reverse the burden of proof.

Notice how you slide between 'proof' and 'evidence' in your sentences. They are not the same thing.

Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive.

The churches spread throughout the empire within 15 years of Jesus' death, the the 27 different authenticated writings discussing Jesus and his teachings, and ancillary works and references throughout the first century is certainly evidence that Jesus did what the people claim he did and said the things they claim he said.

Proof can have different thresholds. Anywhere from more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence), to beyond a reasonable doubt, to absolute. These are all arrived at by considering evidence. So, to say that my list is not evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine--that is the threshold you chose.

So, since my list is backed by evidence, you have a choice. 1) you can just claim you are not convinced by the evidence and you have no burden of proof or 2) you can say this is not evidence of my conclusions--which is a positive claim--and you bring upon your self a burden of proof to support your position. Your choice.



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.

---

I am happy to discuss each point with you in as much detail as you like. However, I am not going to have dueling Amazon book links. Pick one and give me the basics.

I'll start on the one you did actually expand on. The reason there must be a first cause is that a infinite amount of past causes/effects is not logically possible. There is no such possibility as an actual infinite number of anything in the real world. If there were an infinite number of past events, we could never have gotten to the events of today because there would still need to be an infinite amount of events that need to pass before we can get to today. 

No scientist has ever had a theory where things come into being ex nihilo.

There is no *logical* contradiction to an infinite regress. There is also no *logical* contradiction to an actual infinity in the real world. Both of those are positions taken because of an adherence to Aristotelian philosophy that has been superseded by Cantorian logic.

I'm not doing this again with you. I will re-issue my challenge to you. Provide an article from a recognized source that discusses that an actual infinite number of real objects is possible. Until you do, all you have is your made up axioms of infinite sets that have no application to real objects in the real world. 

Now, we can address the *scientific* question of whether there are actual inifnities. Butit remains that there is no *logical* issue with such.

As for creation ex nihilo, even religion doesn't have that: it assumes a pre-existing deity. And that deity has no beginning, There is no *logical* difference is the position that the universe has always existed in some form (the modern variant is to have a multiverse). Now, I will agree that this has not been scientifically demonstrated, but we are talking about *logical* possibilities here. And an infinite time into the past in a multiverse is certainly a logical possibility.

Sure there is a difference. If there is a God, he exists necessarily. The universe does not exist necessarily (if you think so, give some reasons why). 

---

That was easy. My goal was do drive you to a ridiculous position--but you ran there on your own as fast as you could. 99.99% of our knowledge of the world's history before 20th century is a result of reading what people wrote.  

Second, you just admitted that writings are evidence (even as you mischaracterized their status).  So, the NT is evidence of Jesus and his claims. Glad we got that out of the way. 

Reading what people wrote *skeptically*. There are large masses of BS in historical writings. If you read Herodotus, there are clear falsehoods and contradictions. But there is also some real history. A good historian *never* takes the written word as definitive. The bias of the author, the sensitivities of the time and location, the rhetorical goals for writing in the first place have to ALL be taken into account. This means that even in 'serious' history, much of the writing has to be dismissed. When miracles and portents are seen, they are *uniformly* dismissed as superstition unless there is independent collaboration.

I think you meant corroboration. What do you call 27 separate documents written over 50 years, dozens of widespread churches that contained people that saw and/or believed the resurrection?  That's the very definition of corroboration. 

So, for example, that nobody else reported darkness and people coming out of graves when Jesus died suggests that aspect of the story was exaggerated.

And again, the fact that this remarkable story was not collaborated by independent sources *when it would be expected to be* just shows it to be an exaggeration and unreliable.

That's an argument from silence (a fallacy). In addition, 99.99% of all ancient documents have been lost.