The Reasons to Believe in Yahweh

[John V]

To the first point, it seems you are mixing definitions. We do not have "knowledge of prophets". We have people (whose standards of evidence are very low, and who practice credulity, gullibility, and intellectual hypocrisy) who read these texts (and since they already WANTED to believe the supernatural) they ASSUMED it was "a true prophet". But that is an unwarranted assumption/assertion. You have not provided extraordinary evidence of any true prophets, b/c "prophet" assumes your theology (and no, the bible is not extraordinary evidence). The bible is THE CLAIM, upon which you must now provide the extraordinary evidence (just like the other religious texts). So claiming "more manuscripts", or "confirmed archeology", etc are not sufficient (anymore than New York confirms Spiderman or Egypt confirms Horus/Isis). Textual accounts of the supernatural (just like all the other texts through history) are not sufficient to establish a miracle. You need far more than this (even as your bible alludes! Mark16). Unexplained phenomena are not evidence either, because there are hundreds of examples of unexplained phenomena that are later found to be perfectly natural in their origin (i.e. - explained!). Fact is, you can literally call ANY strange occurrence a "miracle" when you don't have more information. This is exactly what the Astrologers and New Agers do. It doesn't work.

That's a common misunderstanding of the extraordinary evidence concept. In this case:

1. The extraordinary claim is that the person is speaking for god
2. The extraordinary evidence is a miracle
3. The text is the ordinary means of perceiving the extraordinary evidence

Many people do as you do and confuse 2&3 for 1&2. Doing that excludes the possibility of extraordinary evidence by definition. By what extraordinary means do you think you can perceive a miracle? Seeing it? Sight is our most ordinary means of obtaining information.

In gJohn, Jesus invoked the principal, saying that people should believe him on the merits of what he was saying, but if not, then for the sake of the miracles he performed.

Muhammed said people should believe him on the merits of what he was saying, but when challenged to produce a miraculous sign, admitted he could not do so.

You can reject Jesus' miracles based on 3 above, i.e. you do not find the ordinary evidence compelling. However, note that this question is asked of theists, who do not rule out the miraculous as atheists do. It's a common and annoying practice on this forum for one atheist to ask a question from a theist perspective, then other atheists ignore that fact. I mean, yeah, we get it, you don;t believe this stuff happened, but if you're going to ask us about the details, we're going to answer from our perspective. /rant

Second, the bible's claims to the supernatural (just like other religious texts) does not fit either of your definitions.

Incorrect. They fit the first definition. Most people take on the beliefs they were raised with, but some switch based on such texts, so they are by definition evidence. They're just not conclusive evidence.

Textual accounts of the supernatural are NOT grounds for belief. That is why you have "FAITH", remember?

Actually we have faith because the miracles, even if accepted, are not full proof of the claims they support. They're necessary, but not adequate.