Does a God exist?

[SteveII]

You are comparing apples and oranges.I don't think it is reasonable to think the NT authors were simply mistaken (as there is ample reasons to think UFO people are)--especially with the additional evidence of the existing churches. The only plausible explanation of the contents being false is intentional deception. That would have been quite an undertaken and I think we would need to answer the question why?

You don't think it reasonable.  Well I guess that settles that.

The additional evidence of the existing churches only demonstrates that people believed, not that they believed rightly.

And then you present a false dichotomy that it was either mistake or deception.  And since you don't believe it was mistake, then it had to be deception.

Your claiming the two cases are different doesn't demonstrate that they are different.  Believers in UFOs have their rationalizations.  Believers in conspiracy theories have theirs.  As do believers in Loch Ness, in Krishna, in Allah, etc.  You all look the same from the outside.  You have an incredible belief with a bunch of mundane, inconclusive evidence.  And you all think you are different.

I have never heard a reasonable  plausible scenario that took into account: 

1) that all 8 authors were mistaken that miracles were happening as they followed Jesus around for 3 years, they were mistaken that he rose from the dead after his crucifixion, and how they worked out the common details in time to start writing to
2) the pre-existing churches who mistakenly believed the same basic thing (of which were not in close proximity to the authors)
3) the well educated Luke (Luke and Acts account for over a quarter of the NT) went to Jerusalem and wrote a historical narrative of Jesus' life and what follows (read Luke 1:1-4). He was not 'originally mistaken' like the rest would have been yet he was convinced that the events were real after reviewing documents and interviewing witnesses. 
4) that Paul, who was not part of the original mistaken, changed sides and was thoroughly convinced of the truth of which he wrote.
5) the content of the mistaken details were somehow weaved into a complex doctrine that was entirely unexpected, yet eloquent and a 'finished' product so early on, not by scholars, but by fairly common people. In addition, it was not a stand-alone religion, it was thoroughly connected to the OT in that the messiah had come--not as expected, but far better because what is better than a political messiah? a spiritual messiah (more productive, lasts longer). Not only did it connect to the OT, it did not contradict the OT. Not bad for a bunch of uneducated fishermen and a former pharisee to plan so thoroughly that they nailed, not just the foundation, but the entirety of Christianity on the first try and in such a way as to have 2.3 Billion people still believing 2000 years later with no basic alteration.  

Simply saying that all these people were mistaken is far easier than accommodating all the facts. 

On the other hand, if you believe that it is possible that God exists, the fact is, it is a much more plausible scenario that it happened just as the NT described. Weird huh?