Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[SteveII]

Here's a start...

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.
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.
     In support of P1 and P2, we have the following:
     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 (every other NT writer)
     c. They presided over the early church (Paul, Acts, first/second century docs)
     d. This early church instructed Paul (Paul, Acts)
     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.  
     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)
     l. Alternate theories of the NT and early church provenance lack explanatory power of the evidence on all sorts of levels
P3. The main promise of the NT is a series of specific supernatural effects on a person
P4. An untold number of people have reported such effects
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.
P6. The question why anything at all exists has no naturalistic explanation (and most likely none forthcoming).
P7. The question of why the universe exists has no metaphysically sound naturalistic explanation. There is no reason to think one will be forthcoming.
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.
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).
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.
P11. There is physical evidence for the supernatural (from P1, P2)
P12. There is a persistent, growing, unbroken chain of personal reports of the supernatural (from P4, P5)
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)

THEREFORE: There are multiple lines of evidence/reasoning that infer the supernatural. Bayes showed us that that more data points that you have that infer a conclusion, the higher the probability the conclusion is true. Additionally, you can apply the math the other direction and examine the probability of these events all happening/reasoning given that the supernatural does not exist. I think there has also been sufficient connections made between cause and effect to understand the framework.

Okay, Steve, I'm going to table P1-P5 because unless you profess that the Bhagavad Gita proves the existence of Vishnu, you cannot say that what is written in the Bible is any sort of proof for God.

Come on. You're smart enough to realize that the Bhagavad Gita is not like the 27 documents of the NT in authorship, personal attestations, proximity the the events and/or eyewitnesses, in content, in context, in just about every other category of historical analysis. I'm really surprised you made such a silly point. 

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

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

In the year 200 B.C. the average Jew thought that it rained because God made it rain. The average Greek thought it rained because Zeus made it rain. What made water fall from the sky periodically must've been quite the mystery (ie. most likely no naturalistic explanation forthcoming). None of them could have predicted that centuries later scientists would work out the water cycle. Why anything (including our universe) exists at all IS rather puzzling and interesting to ponder. But this is god of the gaps reasoning--aka argument from ignorance. --next.

They key in each of those premises is the statement "and most likely none forthcoming". Why is that different than 200BC people? Because P6, P7 and P8 are not actually scientific questions that might be answered by science. They are metaphysical questions. They are beyond our investigation because they are beyond our laws of nature and our ability to investigate. THis is important, any theory that goes further back than our own universe's laws is metaphysics. Since these are metaphysically-based premises and have their own reason structure behind them, they are not god-of-the-gaps or and argument from ignorance. P9 is mind-body dualism. THis is what we intuitively believe and experience and that is all that is needed for proper justification to think this is true. 

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.

Funny how Plato didn't invoke God to explain morality though, right? In fact, he said that using such an approach to understand morality is wrongheaded from the start (see Euthyphro). If moral Platonism is evidence for theism how come myself (and many others) are moral Platonists, yet don't believe in God? Furthermore, math is an objective set of principles, yet is not derived from any evolutionary process. What of it? How is it evidence for God?

Euthyphro is a false dilemma. The point is that most people believe there exists objective moral truths (as you seem to). However, there is no rational basis to claim they are objective. They do not exist necessarily--they are contingent on conscious minds that formed a particular way. Contingent abstract concepts are not objective. Yet, we insist they exist. My contention is that inherent in our consciousness is a commitment to objective morality (whether we can ascertain it completely or not). That is not an evolutionary trait. In fact evolution would have it just the opposite. 

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

Next.

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

There is a persistent, growing, unbroken chain of UFO reports. Does this prove that they are among us? I fail to see what this proposition is trying to say.[/quote]

P11, P12 and P13 are conclusions derived from the premises mentioned. 

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)

This one is kind of interesting. I reject that the supernatural has better explanatory powers... I mean... the proposition started strong and then drifted into god of the gaps again. Think of people in the middle ages who attributed milk curdling prematurely to a "hag's curse." Without a proper background of knowledge concerning bacterial cultures, the hag's curse has a great deal of explanatory power. But that doesn't make it the correct explanation. The first part of the prop is quite interesting, though. "Naturalism is insufficient." I might even agree with you here, if I were allowed a broad interpretation of the statement. And it's one of the reasons I hold theism to be logically tenable.

So first part of P13 has a point. The rest not so much. If you think I've missed something, feel free to point out my error.

So, you are fine with your insufficient worldview that will not/can not explain everything. It is a fact that my worldview answer more questions than yours does. It is not god-of-the-gaps because I have complete arguments behind each premise that I have argued at length elsewhere.