Religious Background

[SteveII]

No, that is not the case. No offence, but I can't discuss anything with someone who hides behind a misuse of "special pleading" at every turn. 

For example, in response to my post https://atheistforums.org/post-1580092.html#pid1580092 (which took me awhile to write), your responses amounted to "special pleading", "straw man" and restating there is no evidence/magic isn't real. You did not address specifics in any way. That tells me you are either unwilling or unable to discuss the issues on a deeper level--which is fine. I will move on.

No offence, but I can't discuss anything with someone who hides behind a misuse of "special pleading" at every turn. 

This is the pot calling the kettle black

When all you present to me are logical fallacies or misrepresentations of my points (regardless of how long it took you to write it), there is nothing of substance to reply to. The theological interpretations you present are irrelevant and back-up my point that there are only two options when it comes to the bible: 1) literal interpretation, 2) non-literal interpretation. [1] The rest of my points remain.

There is no "deeper level" to discuss the paucity of evidence for biblical claims. The specifics of theological arguments (that assume a god is a possible thing and that it is possible for the bible to be true) are not relevant with respect to what has been my primary point all along: there is no evidence to show a god is a possible thing to exist. Meaning that it doesn't matter what apologetics you engage in within the context of believing your religion, because I have no reason to believe your religion is possible. As I (and others) have pointed out several times, it doesn't matter if people believe in magic because that tells me nothing about whether or not magic is real. If you want your magic to be considered possible, you need evidence the bible is true. Pointing to the bible for said evidence is circular (you can't use the source of the claim as evidence the claim is true). [2]

1. Sure there are two options. However, the Bible is no one or the other. It contains both. You have to use your brain to figure out which. 

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics
  
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis
  

To say it has to be one or the other and then use that as a reason that it is wrong is just poor reasoning.

2. Three points on the New Testament not being the claim:

1. The claim is that the events outlined in the gospels really happened--one in particular: that Jesus Christ, the son of God, came to earth to redeem humanity and provide a way for people to have a relationship with God. 
   
2. The gospels and Acts catalog the claim. The balance are letters discussing and applying the claim.
   
3. The NT consists of 27 different documents written over 50 years time (give or take). It's just nonsense to describe such a diverse collection of palaeographical gold as if it were one thing: the claim.
   

Evidence for this claim are the people and events surrounding the life of Jesus that the authors wrote about. It is not as if the gospel writers wrote an essay on what people were saying and gave no opinion on the facts. They were testifying to its truthfulness (as evidenced by their own experience or by interviewing eyewitnesses as they wrote it). 

In addition (and as I outlined previously), the NT points out several pieces of additional evidence:

- There were churches in many major cities stretching from Palestine to Rome before Paul started to write his letters to them around 50ad. Not only were there churches, but they believed in the major events outlined in the gospels prior to the gospels and Paul's letters.
- Paul quotes several creeds in his letters that appear to have been used among the early church prior to his letters.
- Many historians think that there existed another document Q that predates the gospels and we can reconstruct parts of it from the gospels.

It is not even up for debate whether this stuff is evidence. By definition it is. The debate is whether it is compelling enough to convince a reasonable person of the truth of the conclusion woven throughout. It is only the naive or obnoxious atheist that thinks that arguments of "no evidence" are part of a reasonable dialog. The most any of you has the right to say is that the evidence is, personally, not compelling (which is an opinion). 

3. The cumulative evidence that I believe that supports my belief (another opinion) is below:

i. Person of Jesus is compelling.
ii. The NT describes actual events including the miracles, life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
iii. God works in people's lives today--changing people on the inside as well as the occurrence of miracles.
iv. The natural theology arguments:
a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

Since you cannot 'prove' that any of these are falsely held beliefs, my conclusion (opinion) that God exists is rationale. The amount of evidence meets my personal threshold for proof that God exists.