Does a God exist?

[SteveII]

I choose to believe that the authors of the NT were truthful in what they wrote and that the core content was not changed at a later date--both evidenced by the existence of a growing church as little as 15-20 years after Jesus' death. I would expect to see minor contradictions and minor transcribing errors. I believe the life and death of Jesus is one of the most attested to events in ancient history. 

I also believe the denial of the above consists mainly of a belief that miracles do not happen. This is a circular argument because you are asking for evidence that God exists and then say, well, you can't use miracles because...God does not exist.

Finally we've got right down to it! Steve, you are absolutely free to believe that, but I take this to be you conceding the argument.

"I choose to believe..." Demonstrates that you don't hold your beliefs because they are true, you assert they are true because you want them to be true, you like that story of events. It shows that you are not following the evidence where it leads, you are leading the evidence to the conclusion you want.

You may choose to believe that the authors were truthful, but that doesn't prove a thing.

The growth of the Christian church is no different from the growth of Mormonism, Scientology, or dozens of other religions, and it proves nothing about the truth of their claims, only the popularity of the movement.

Now - you say denial of this only comes from disbelief in Miracles and that this is a circular argument. You have the burden of proof backward. Miracles have to be demonstrated to have occurred before it is rational to believe that they can happen. This has never been done, so it doesn't matter if I think miracles are impossible - until they are demonstrated, it is irrational to believe that they have ever happened.

You can point to the Bible and say "look, these people say miracles happened." So what? This is here say. It's the worst kind of evidence, copies of copies of translations of copies of testamony that would be utterly incredible if given by someone living today. We have better evidence of UFOs. The Biblical evidence for miracles is laughable. You believe in miracles because it says so in some old book? From 1950 years ago? Just because lots of other people do as well? Because you choose to believe they are truthful?

I'm not saying you can't have miracles because God doesn't exist, I'm saying its unreasonable and irrational to believe in miracles, or God, because NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE exists. You can choose to believe what you like. You can choose to believe in Zeus or Apollo or the Flying Spaghetti Monster - but that doesn't mean any of those things are real.

So if you're happy to just affirm whatever version of reality makes you feel good, rather than trying to investigate and discover the truth about reality as it is, then go for it, but know that you are basing your world map on comfort over reality - in a nutshell, you are living in a fantasy.

First, every belief you hold, you 'chose' to believe it. Second, the phrase "choose to believe" in no way impacts the truth of the NT. It could be true, it could be false, and it could even be that the facts are true but my belief is false because I believed for the wrong reason. So, no, it does not demonstrate anything. If you want to attack my belief, you'll have to give reasons why my belief is false. 

The NT contains multiple attestations of miracles and it is clear that the early church (before any books of the NT were even written) believed them to have happened as well (that would be 2 separate bodies of evidence even before you break the NT into 27 separate documents). I don't have any reason to think they are lying, so I believe they happened, therefore I believe there is evidence for the existence of God. 

Why do you 'chose to believe' that the 1) the early church held false beliefs and later 2) the 8 authors of the NT claimed to have knowledge that they did not have? You just admitted it has nothing to do with whether miracles happened or not (because then your argument would be circular).

[SteveII]

If you choose to believe something, then you don't actually believe it. If you did, there would be no choice in the matter.

That's just plain false. 

Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

[SteveII]

duplicate.

[pocaracas]

First, every belief you hold, you 'chose' to believe it.

Steve, my boy... you are wrong:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotheology

https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_sherme...anguage=en

First, you intuitively believe, then you consciously acknowledge that belief.... your "choosing to believe" purports to this second stage... or some other that comes later.

The NT contains multiple attestations of miracles and it is clear that the early church (before any books of the NT were even written) believed them to have happened as well (that would be 2 separate bodies of evidence even before you break the NT into 27 separate documents). I don't have any reason to think they are lying, so I believe they happened, therefore I believe there is evidence for the existence of God. 

The NT delves in circular logic there, wouldn't you think?
Here's a marvelous tale that happened.... And here's the tale of the people who believed in the marvelous tale.
Certainly, no reason to think they'd be lying... -.-'

Specially, when you know that "the early church" was no such thing... I think Minimalist will eventually lecture you on that, but [spoiler alert] it was mostly made up in the second century [/spoiler alert].

Sure... there were Essenes in the first century who may have seen their long awaited Teacher arisen in the person of Jesus... (note the "may" - there's nothing of consequence written about this).

Why do you 'chose to believe' that the 1) the early church held false beliefs and later 2) the 8 authors of the NT claimed to have knowledge that they did not have? You just admitted it has nothing to do with whether miracles happened or not (because then your argument would be circular).

Tell me, did the authors of the Vedas claim to have knowledge that they didn't really have?
Did the authors of the Egyptian book of the dead claim to have knowledge that they didn't have?
(should I go on for other authors of other religious texts from other religions?.... I'm sure I can come up with a few... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_text)

Did/do they all hold false beliefs? How shocking!!

[brewer]

OP, god exists in the minds/imagination of (some) humans. god exists as a bane of humanity and society. god does not exist in reality.

Ignorant, you can't argue god into existence/reality any more than you can argue any fantasy into existence/reality.

Steve, you are dependent on anecdotal evidence for god. That may be OK for you. Tell me, do you operate under acceptance of anecdotal evidence in other areas of your life? For instance, do the doctors that you choose to treat you operate under anecdotal evidence?

[Cyberman]

I think Jesus coming to earth, teaching, dying and then rising from the dead is a pretty good demonstration that God exists. First century Christians sure thought so--they said exactly that! How about that for concise?

I think Obi-Wan Kenobi coming to the Death Star, dying and then rising from the dead is a pretty good demonstration that the Force exists. Luke and Yoda (and Darth Vader) sure thought so - they said exactly that!

[pocaracas]

Can I?
Can I?
Can I?

Can any of the theists here actually demonstrate that a God exists? [1]

Can you concisely, empirically, logically or rationally meet your burden of proof to demonstrate that any God exists? [3]

Please start by defining what you mean by 'God.' [2]

No preaching please!

1) Probably not in a way you will find convincing.

One point for house Griffindor!

2) Defining god at the outset is backwards, but since you asked: 'god' is subsistent-being, i.e. that-which-exists-as-'god' is being whatever-it-is completely by the power of its own act of being: no other act of being is a necessary condition for that-which-exists-as-god to be 

oooOOooo... that was better than my lame attempt.
One point for house Griffindor!

3) Empirical evidence (EE): 

a) Some things exist on the condition that other thing(s) simultaneously exist. (e.g. I exist on the condition that a certain ordering and configuration of human cells also exist simultaneously with 'me', and the 'ordering and configuration' of those cells exist on the condition that a certain amount and quality of cells exist simultaneously with the 'ordering and configuration', and the 'certain amount and quality of those cells' exist on the condition that a certain ordering and configuration of molecules exist simultaneously with the 'amount and quality of those cells', etc.)

Ok... with you so far... but I don't see how this relates to anything...

b) No non-abstract (i.e. non-mathematical) actual infinity of things is known to exist (i.e. All aggregates of 'things' are finite aggregates)

"of things"... right... still with you...

Logical axiom (LA): Non-abstract actual infinities cannot exist

Well.... to call this an axiom seems a bit far fetched... I'd go with "assumption".
You cannot say that something unobserved cannot exist. That's the whole point of there being agnostics.

Logical Demonstration:

Given EE(a) is true, then either:

i) All things exist on the condition that other thing(s) simultaneously exist, or

ii) At least one thing exists without the condition that other thing(s) exist.

If EE(a) is true, then there is no possibility besides (i) and (ii)

But... but... what does it mean "to exist", in this context?
It seems to me that you're trying to mix up two different concepts of "existing".
The empirical existing, that which is bound by the physics of our Universe.
And the meta-existing, that which is not bound by the physics of our Universe.

Your premise EE(a) was implying the empirical kind of existing... You can thus not apply it to the meta-existing.

Most apologetics fail at this kind of level - confusing two concepts under the umbrella of the same word.
It was a nice attempt... but you fail.

Anyway... let's see how it went...

Suppose (i) is true. Then all things are aggregates of an infinity of simultaneously existing things, which are themselves aggregates of an infinity of simultaneously existing things, etc.)

Why an infinity?
The set of all things need not be and infinite set.

However, supposing LA (which is consistent with EE(b)), then (i) cannot be true.

Ah... now it's a supposition... ok.
Yes it's consistent with EE(b)... but I fail to see why (i) cannot be true.
All things are not necessarily an infinite set... didn't I just say this?
Actually, "all things" are very likely not an infinite set.
Ask any astrophysicist and he'll tell you that the Universe seems to be bounded.

Therefore, (ii) must be true: at least one thing exists without the condition that other thing(s) exist.

Well... no. As I hope to have shown, (i) is not necessarily false, so (ii) is not necessarily true.
So, nothing is proven.

Infinity is a strange concept... we humans like to think of it as some "very large" number.... but no.... that's wrong.

What is this thing(s)? The demonstration cannot answer that. Does such a thing(s) exist? Yes, and it exists in the most simple and fundamental way: it just is.

To facilitate the discussion about this thing or things, call it/them whatever you want. I happen to call it/them 'god'

I think you need to discover how not to mix up concepts that share the same word and how to use infinities properly.

[Whateverist]

How about if that "growing church" was just an evolution of the Essene cult?

How would you explain the content of Paul's letters to them?

Personally I can't explain the content of most of the letters of antiquity, nor do I care to.  Pretty thin stuff to base such a far fetched belief on.  My advice is to just admit it's your own heart felt faith and that any alleged evidence is rubbish.  There would be integrity in that.

[Whateverist]

I think Jesus coming to earth, teaching, dying and then rising from the dead is a pretty good demonstration that God exists. First century Christians sure thought so--they said exactly that! How about that for concise?

I think Obi-Wan Kenobi coming to the Death Star, dying and then rising from the dead is a pretty good demonstration that the Force exists. Luke and Yoda (and Darth Vader) sure thought so - they said exactly that!

How can Steve explain the dialogue in that movie otherwise? Bow down to the force Christian unbeliever.

[Angrboda]

I don't have any reason to think they are lying, so I believe they happened, therefore I believe there is evidence for the existence of God. 

There is abundant evidence that these were times replete with kooks and quacks of all varieties, from sincere lunatics to ingenious frauds, even innocent men mistaken for divine, and there was no end to the fools and loons who would follow and praise them.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richa...kooks.html

You have plenty of reason to doubt that the miracles in the NT happened, you just choose not to exercise those reasons with regard to the NT. You doubt that Joseph Smith talked to an angel. You doubt that Mohammed did likewise. You choose not to exercise those doubts with respect to the NT. That makes you guilty of special pleading and your conclusions are therefore not reliable. You treat the truth claims of the NT differently than you do other truth claims. That's simply being biased.