The universe existing as a byproduct of God?

[FatAndFaithless]

It's not circular because the NT is a claim of supernatural events, not evidence for them.

Really, I expected better from you with that.

What is the difference? How do we know any historical event happened? People write about it.

Er..so you'd consider writings of people claiming to have been abducted by aliens as evidence that they were abducted by aliens?

[KevinM1]

It's not circular because the NT is a claim of supernatural events, not evidence for them.

Really, I expected better from you with that.

What is the difference? How do we know any historical event happened? People write about it.

There's also archaeology.

But, here's the thing - Christians like to rely on the Gospels as being separate works that corroborate a single story.  But, the Gospels were written with the intent to make one messiah stand out in a world of others.  The disciples and/or whomever wrote them weren't just disinterested bystanders or eyewitnesses, they had a vested interest in making Jesus powerful and desirable to follow.  A messiah who cannot perform miracles, who cannot wield the power of the god he professes to exist, isn't much of a messiah at all.

The Bible is propaganda in the purest sense.  And while it may reference real places, mundane events, and people, the supernatural elements it purports cannot be regarded as being true because there's nothing unbiased to corroborate it.  And references to the mundane/real does not make the supernatural elements more likely.  Just because New York City is a real place doesn't mean that the Hulk's existence is more likely.

This is investigation 101.  If you can't prove something happened, why believe it happened?  Because people who want it to happen said so?  Because a story loses its foundation without it?  Or because it simply feels good?

[SteveII]

What is the difference? How do we know any historical event happened? People write about it.

There's also archaeology.

But, here's the thing - Christians like to rely on the Gospels as being separate works that corroborate a single story.  But, the Gospels were written with the intent to make one messiah stand out in a world of others.  The disciples and/or whomever wrote them weren't just disinterested bystanders or eyewitnesses, they had a vested interest in making Jesus powerful and desirable to follow.  A messiah who cannot perform miracles, who cannot wield the power of the god he professes to exist, isn't much of a messiah at all.

The Bible is propaganda in the purest sense.  And while it may reference real places, mundane events, and people, the supernatural elements it purports cannot be regarded as being true because there's nothing unbiased to corroborate it.  And references to the mundane/real does not make the supernatural elements more likely.  Just because New York City is a real place doesn't mean that the Hulk's existence is more likely.

This is investigation 101.  If you can't prove something happened, why believe it happened?  Because people who want it to happen said so?  Because a story loses its foundation without it?  Or because it simply feels good?

I could see you point if there were not already a series of churches stretched across the Roman empire that predate Paul's letters and the gospels. The letters indicate that these churches already believed what we later learn in the gospels. 

So, therefore the letters and the gospels are descriptions of the beliefs already held. Thus they are evidence and not propaganda.

[FatAndFaithless]

They are evidence that they believed certain things, yes. They aren't evidence that they're beliefs are actually true.

[GrandizerII]

There's also archaeology.

But, here's the thing - Christians like to rely on the Gospels as being separate works that corroborate a single story.  But, the Gospels were written with the intent to make one messiah stand out in a world of others.  The disciples and/or whomever wrote them weren't just disinterested bystanders or eyewitnesses, they had a vested interest in making Jesus powerful and desirable to follow.  A messiah who cannot perform miracles, who cannot wield the power of the god he professes to exist, isn't much of a messiah at all.

The Bible is propaganda in the purest sense.  And while it may reference real places, mundane events, and people, the supernatural elements it purports cannot be regarded as being true because there's nothing unbiased to corroborate it.  And references to the mundane/real does not make the supernatural elements more likely.  Just because New York City is a real place doesn't mean that the Hulk's existence is more likely.

This is investigation 101.  If you can't prove something happened, why believe it happened?  Because people who want it to happen said so?  Because a story loses its foundation without it?  Or because it simply feels good?

I could see you point if there were not already a series of churches stretched across the Roman empire that predate Paul's letters and the gospels. The letters indicate that these churches already believed what we later learn in the gospels. 

So, therefore the letters and the gospels are descriptions of the beliefs already held. Thus they are evidence and not propaganda.

Of beliefs already held, as FatAndFaithless said.

Furthermore, something can be both evidence and propaganda at same time. Not mutually exclusive.

[SteveII]

What is the difference? How do we know any historical event happened? People write about it.

Well, since Bayes' theorem (or Bayesian probability) was brought up very recently in another thread, perhaps the key is in the prior probabilities. In the absence of information ascertaining or substantially improving the likelihood of supernatural events, then the probability of any supernatural event is extremely low, very close to zero.

That's simply not true. An event is not simply the probability of A in respects to B or Pr(A/B). Modern probability calculus indicates that we need to consider the background information and the probability that A would happen if not B (and other such comparisons). So the calculation is really Pr(A/B&E) where E stands for various evidences and background information. 

For example, what is the probability that the crippled man would have walked when commanded to "rise, take up your bed and walk" if a miracle had not happened? Probability goes way up when you look at it properly.

[The Grand Nudger]

The only thing that's obvious based upon the bit about how many people believe is that you have trouble addressing the subject rationally.

As to the comment directly above...this...again..? Fine, let's see some math, again.

[LastPoet]

I love apologists tap dancing around.

[GrandizerII]

Well, since Bayes' theorem (or Bayesian probability) was brought up very recently in another thread, perhaps the key is in the prior probabilities. In the absence of information ascertaining or substantially improving the likelihood of supernatural events, then the probability of any supernatural event is extremely low, very close to zero.

That's simply not true. An event is not simply the probability of A in respects to B or Pr(A/B). Modern probability calculus indicates that we need to consider the background information and the probability that A would happen if not B (and other such comparisons). So the calculation is really Pr(A/B&E) where E stands for various evidences and background information. 

For example, what is the probability that the crippled man would have walked when commanded to "rise, take up your bed and walk" if a miracle had not happened? Probability goes way up when you look at it properly.

To remove ambiguity, have the letters represent certain events so we can examine what exactly you're arguing. What does A stand for in this case? And what do B and E stand for exactly?

And also, how the hell would the probability of a crippled man standing up and walking when requested to do so go way up if a miracle had not taken place? Do you mean it'll become no longer extremely low probability? Perhaps we'll get the answer when you clarify what you're arguing exactly.

[SteveII]

They are evidence that they believed certain things, yes.  They aren't evidence that they're beliefs are actually true.

So then the NT is a description of what contemporary people believed to be true with respects to Jesus' life and claims. Why would they believe it to be true if in fact it was not? Many would be eyewitnesses or had access to eyewitnesses.