The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[robvalue]

So, you're changing your own scenario. Just being reliable and being in court isn't enough now. So say they did whatever thing was needed to "get your attention" and then said Islam was true, and that you should convert. Would you believe them?

The only record we have of God doing anything is in the bible, which is the claim. So until we've established any of it is true, you can't assume it actually happened in order to justify your claim and say "God killed false prophets". That is begging the question, again.

Yes, I've tried talking to God. I've tried every method I could possibly think of. Absolutely nothing happened. From my point of view, he is doing everything possible to hide from me and to make it look like all religions are baseless mythical stories. If he's trying to persuade me any of them are true, and particularly Christianity, he couldn't be doing a worse job of it. I don't need to claim they are false, any more than I need to claim the tooth fairy isn't real. But until such time as God decides to give me some evidence, then there's not much I can do. From your point of view, the best I could do is pretend to believe. That really would be a waste of time all round. And considering the God on show, even if I did believe he was real, the last thing I'd do is worship him.

There is nothing special about the "evidence" for Christianity. It requires the same circular reasoning as every other religion to believe anything in it above mundane historical facts. As soon as you tell me "what God did" as if it is a fact, you are assuming your conclusion.

No, there isn't any credible historian who would say that if you can demonstrate most of an account is true, you should believe all the rest of it no matter how wild the claims. Only those who already believe in the story would take this approach. It's not intellectually honest or consistent.

---

Wait. Your definition of God includes that he "Can't fail to exist".

That is the ultimate in begging the question, to define something so it can't not exist.

This makes me wonder if you're at all interested in challenging your beliefs and considering if you could be wrong; or are just looking to persuade others and affirm what you already believe.

It's an extremely vague definition, and an overreaching one, giving rise to several possible logical paradoxes. Also there is the question of how anyone could know all this about him even if he does exist, except by taking his word: and not even his word, humans' word of what his word is.

If a powerful thingy turned up in front of me, I really would have no way to know if it was this "God" or just a super powered alien. How could I tell?