A simple challenge for atheists

[Mister Agenda]

How is your position on miracles not circular?

For one thing, the position you're ascribing to us is not our actual position.

1 There is no God.

Maybe there is a God. It's impossible to assess the likelihood of God until you define what you mean by it. Some versions of God are self-contradictory and terefore must not exist. Some versions don't involve contradiction, and merely lack any good reason to think they're actually real.

2 Miracles are the supernatural work of God.

If there is a God, it doesn't necessarily do 'miracles'. Maybe there is a God, and he/she/it works entirely by natural means.

3 Therefore, miracles are impossible.

I don't know that miracles are impossible. I just know that one has never been scientifically confirmed. Like claims of the paranormal, the closer you look, the less there actually is.

4 The gospels contains reports of miracles.

Yep, you got us on that point.

5 Therefore, the gospels contains legendary material or historical misrepresentations.

That superficially appears to be the case, but if you have evidence otherwise, I would be very interested in it.

6 Therefore, the gospels cannot be trusted.

I really can't think of any ancient document that should be trusted without corroborating evidence.

7 Therefore, there is no evidence for God.

If you know of any evidence for God, please share with the class.

8 Therefore, there is no God.

Therefore, there is no compelling reason to believe that God is real. Even if God IS real, belief in God is not justifed by reason or evidence. If you don't think the things you believe should be justified by reason or evidence, that's you, but odds are that skeptics are going to have certain standards for what they should find convincing.

Is there any other evidence for the existence of God than a miraculous event?

A miraculous event would be a good start, even if you substitute 'supernatural' for God. If you know of a proven miracle, you should lead with that.

You will not accept conclusions like first cause, fine-tuning, complexity of life, human consciousness therefore God.

I could accept such conclusions if they were preceded by a sound premise, non-fallacious support, and some evidence.

You cannot say prove God before I believe in miracles.

We can certainly say 'prove miracles before I believe in God'.

Or, are you saying that if we knew the gospel writers to be eyewitnesses then you would believe in miracles.

The difference between us isn't necessarily that we are more skeptical, but that we hold your religious beliefs to the same standards as anyone else's. Buddhists and Hindus can't prove their miracles either. Do you believe that Buddhist and Hindu miracle claims are equally as genuine as Abrahamic claims? If you disbelieve those Eastern miracle claims, is the process by which you reject them substantially different from the process by which we reject yours?