A simple challenge for atheists

[SteveII]

You want me to comment on documents that may or may not exist and whose content I cannot be examined?

Just like you're asking us to accept the testimony of people who may or may not exist, whose content you cannot examine (remember, the bible authors are anonymous and none of them ever claimed to be eyewitnesses, so they're just commenting on second hand accounts at best.)

That's the point that you did, indeed, miss: why is your hearsay from anonymous sources okay as evidence, while you automatically doubt any hearsay that conflicts with what you already believe?

The friend who said that God did not exist, was he an eyewitness to the events of the first century? The parallel is nonsense since we are talking about an series of events and not a philosophical statement.

So what if my friend was an eyewitness or not? None of the bible authors were eyewitnesses either; both your and my accounts are second hand, they're on equal ground. I could equally also just claim that he was an eyewitness, being that he's a time traveller, and when you ask me for proof of that, I could just say that time travel is possible if my friend exists, which is the same argument exactly as your "if god exists then miracles" justification.

This is the problem: you make arguments, and then when people make the exact same arguments back to you, suddenly they're no longer effective. Which is it? Is what you're saying solid justification or not?

Your comparison of the supposed secret letters that claim Jesus was not real is a poor example to support the point you are trying to make.

1. We don't even know if they exist.
2. We don't know their content.
3. We don't know the other pertinent facts of the documents: their provenance, their likely time frame, likely authors, reasons for writing, etc.

Likewise your fictitious modern friend who claims to know something about God and tells you so is a poor parallel as well because:

1. The gospel writers exist as evidenced by the gospels.
2. The gospel writers understand themselves to be relating historical events that are happening in real places with real people--many facts could still be verified at the time. Your fictitious friend isn't providing details, just "the bible isn't true".
2. We know the time frame of the gospels (with the lifetime of eyewitnesses). Time travel aside, your fictitious friend cannot add nor take way from period writing and experiences.
3. We know the content was believed by others even before the gospels themselves were written (epistles, etc.). Does your friend have friends that say the same thing and acted in real life on that information?
4. and perhaps the most important thing that does not seem to sink in is that we are discussing a particular event, the resurrection. This is not a case where someone gets a new message from God or some other truth claim. Christianity hinges on a real event.

I have yet to hear why you think that the gospels and the epistles were written and why the early church believed these events took place.