A simple challenge for atheists

[Esquilax]

1. I understand what the gospels are. I understand they are anonymous. I understand them to be written within the lifetime of witnesses. I understand them to be written for the reason the first verse of Luke says:

1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Why assume that to be true? Given the contradictions between the gospels, their anonymous authorship and dubious provenance, why assume that any of the individual claims in one of the gospels is true for all four? Because it's convenient? Ditto with the claim of being written within the lifespan of eyewitnesses, since we had a conversation about average lifespans before, and more importantly, since "it is possible that eyewitnesses played a part," is not evidence that they actually did.

And if you new the bible was written anonymously, why object to my claim on the grounds that you did?

2. The further evidence of the epistles (written before the Gospels) and the fact there were churches all over to write letters to suggest these events were believed.

How do you know the writers of the epistles didn't also write the gospels to lend more credence to their writings? No doubt you'll dismiss this as a conspiracy theory, but that's exactly the point: when it comes to the gospel stories what we have is an information vacuum, and yet you're extrapolating whole narratives from a lack of properly verified information. It's not a proper way to arrive at truth.

3. Conspiracy theories to give an alternate explanation to this evidence do not seem plausible for a number of reason.

"There are reasons to dismiss what you say," is not a rebuttal, it's a baseless dismissal.

4. Many events were prophesied. While this point was not brought up, it does lend some weight. This fact certainly meant something to the first Jewish Christians.

All those prophesies are vaguely worded pablum either retrofitted to later events by guys like you who do it out of convenience, or had the text manipulated so that the prophecy was "fulfilled," in cases where the bible contains both the prophecy and its supposed fulfillment. Never forget that the new testament authors had access to the old testament when writing.

5. Is there incontrovertible proof that Jesus rose from the dead? No, there is not. Is there evidence that he did? Yes there is. You can question the strength of the evidence, but you don't get to claim there is none.

You keep desperately grasping at this point, but even if we accept it, at best what it means is that you're accepting an extraordinary claim on bad evidence, rather than no evidence. That's still irrational, which is the opposite of what you're trying to argue for.

6. You are caught in the circular reasoning that God does not exists so miracles do not exist. The only physical proof (which is what you are demanding) that God exists is a miracle. Many of you have stated in different ways that any account of a miracle is proof that it is not true.

So, you didn't listen at all when I said I'd entertain the possibility of miracles when you demonstrated that they were possible? Or are you just lying, because it's easier to pretend that everyone else has unfair presuppositions, rather than admit you're losing the argument? I already said I'm open to the possibility assuming you can demonstrate that it is a possibility.

But do you know what's really circular reasoning? "The only physical proof of god is miracles," when coupled to the "if god exists, miracles are possible!" line you've been using so far. You're using miracles to prove god, and god to prove miracles. A perfect circle.

Now, do you have any evidence that miracles are possible and occur, or just more circular reasoning?

7. You say I claim special pleading because I think Christianity is right and other religions are wrong. I may not have formed the sentences perfectly, but that is incorrect. I have evidence to believe that Christianity is right and other religions are wrong. Again, I don't care that you think the evidence is thin, it is still evidence.

At best, your argument shows that you're believing on bad evidence, that you privilege over better evidence for other things, like the idea that none of those religions are true. Aside from still being special pleading, if that's as strong as your position goes, I wonder why you still hold it?

8. You think I have reasoned in a circle. That is not true. I support 4 accounts of events with the fact that the early Christians believed these events to be true. It is important to distinguish that the gospels relate events (objective) and are not "inspired writings" like the Quran (subjective).

But as has been pointed out to you before, the fact that other people believe a story doesn't make it true. That's an appeal to popularity fallacy; if a billion people believed that humans didn't need oxygen to survive, that doesn't make it so. Your "support" is nothing of the sort.

9. Lastly, you cannot be reasoned into Christianity. There is an element of faith and a desire to have a relationship with God. If you approach it with a closed mind that God cannot exist, there is no way for it to make any sense to you.

Faith is belief in spite of evidence. Why would any of us want that, considering that it can also be used to support the existence of anything?