Do Christians have faith in oxygen/air?

[Brian37]

Nonsense, Of course they are not similar they were different events, but just as unbelievable in the claims of supernatural intervention.  Without that supernatural intervention (which you admit is not falsifiable)  your stories really amount to nothing

Not at all. In fact, the only way to verify the supernatural is interaction with the natural. The more people that see it the more likely the interaction. The more interaction over a period (especially a period with some context--like the NT), the likelihood increases exponentially (probabilities and all). What is not falsifiable is an entirely personal experience (Mohammed/Joe Smith). 

 
That's just the point of the NT, we really don't know where the stories originated, we are even unclear as to who wrote the gospels for instance, and were written long after, they may very well have originally come from one persons head and spread from there.  Given the rather fickle unknown nature of these witnesses they can hardly be counted as evidence for supernatural claims at all.  And again without evidence of the supernatural claims that many religions make why should we believe them ?

Yes we do know. The NT is the most examined series of documents in all of history--by many orders of magnitude. You are latching on to fringe theories to support your point. 

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry
c. They presided over the early church
d. This early church instructed Paul
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)

There are eight witnesses to Joseph Smiths so called golden plates, and the three witnesses who claimed they had heard gods voice instructing Joseph Smith, what's more we know who these people are, even what they looked like.  They were of course frauds there is no reason to believe them any more than NT writers.

My understanding was that Joe was forbidden to show anyone the plates--and never did. 

Well that's just the point, you have reasons but no evidence you have already stated that the supernatural cannot be falsified, so basically unless you can provide strong evidence for the supernatural elements of what you believe, then you reasons come to nothing.

See a through k above for my evidentiary framework of the NT. 

Yes a fantastic claim, of a fantastic god, which seem to be lacking any evidence.
If there was indeed evidence then this debate between religions would long be over.

Seems to be question begging: miracles don't happen, the NT can't be evidence of miracles, see...miracles don't happen. 

I don't really estimate the value of either position, I simply ask you for evidence, you cannot overestimate a lack of belief, that's just silly

And? if they do good science, why would their faith be a problem.?

To deny that the NT is not evidence is just special pleading on a grand scale. The events of the NT are the most written about (from the actual period) and therefore the most evidenced ancient events in all of history. In addition, we have an unbroken series of writings from the first century all the way to present day to trace the beliefs and reinforce the original claims. 

The Muslim apologetic and The Jew, would say exactly the same as you.
You talk as though you present a good argument, all you have to do is convince someone who lacks belief you don't even have to unconvinced them of anything to start with.  The god describe below should have heaps of compelling evidence.. yet as always  the world carries on as if none of those attributes are true.

Lord of Hosts/Powers (Jehovah Sabaoth)
Lord our Maker
faithful God who does no wrong
A forgiving God
A fortress of salvation
A glorious crown
A jealous and avenging God
A Master in heaven A refuge for his people
A refuge for the needy in his distress
A refuge for the oppressed
A refuge for the poor
A sanctuary
A shade from the heat
A shelter from the storm
A source of strength
A stronghold in times of trouble
An ever present help in trouble
Architect and builder
Builder of everything
Commander of the Lord’s army
Creator of heaven and earth
Defender of widows
Eternal King
Father Father of compassion
Father of our spirits
Father of the heavenly lights
My helper
My hiding place
My hope
My light
My mighty rock
God who relents from sending calamity
God who sees (El-Roi)
Great and awesome God
Great and powerful God
Great, mighty, and awesome God
King of glory
King of heaven
Living and true God

Your point of showing this list over and over is very weak. If the evidence of the NT satisfies a person's personal threshold--then it follows logically that the God of the OT is real. In other words, the evidence for your list is the NT.

No, that is simply an old book of mythology, just like you rightfully reject the god/s of the Hindus and the words in the Vedas and Bhagavad Gita. Just like you rightfully reject the claims of old Egyptian mythology.

AND knock it off. It is well established that the Yahweh character was stolen by the splinter sect Hebrews from the prior Canaanite polytheism in which Yahweh was NOT the top god but a lesser deity under the head god El.

The OT god is not real, your desire and wishful thinking is what is driving you and nothing more.

[possibletarian]

Not at all. In fact, the only way to verify the supernatural is interaction with the natural. The more people that see it the more likely the interaction. The more interaction over a period (especially a period with some context--like the NT), the likelihood increases exponentially (probabilities and all). What is not falsifiable is an entirely personal experience (Mohammed/Joe Smith).

Exactly what we are looking for in empirical evidence of god's interaction with humanity, care to offer some? Witness's from 2,000 years ago that we know little about outside of a collection of books written after the events does not count as empirical evidence that we can trust, otherwise why not believe in all claimed gods ?

Christians are claiming that we not only have the god described long ago, but that the very same god interacts with us today, do you have an empirical evidence you so gracefully highlighted ?

My understanding was that Joe was forbidden to show anyone the plates--and never did.

This perhaps come down to your ignorance of other faith claims, which are in every way as convincing (or unconvincing) as your own, and have witnesses to the events, and that we know exactly who they are and even what they looked like, and a mass following that claim miracles much more convincing that Christian testimony, and yet still not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_witnesses

Yes we do know. The NT is the most examined series of documents in all of history--by many orders of magnitude.

Being the most examined does not make anything true

You are latching on to fringe theories to support your point.

 

So you assert.

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)

Nobody is denying that a teacher called Jesus lived and started a cult just like nobody denies that Joseph Smith or Mohamed existed
Or that the authorities of the time regarded it as a cult. The only real account of Jesus himself outside the bible Joesphus, is thought to have been tampered with by the early church making it very unreliable.  And that from stories rather than personal experience.

b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry
c. They presided over the early church
d. This early church instructed Paul
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)

But now aren't we relying on the bible to  prove the bible, without first proving the bible to be an accurate true account. ?  
It's clear even from Lukes account  (Synoptic) Gospel that it is a copied account of what he was already told, and he had prepared a copy of other stories, the Synoptic gospels cannot be regarded as accumulative evidence. Nor were any of the gospels written from a first person perspective, nor is there anything in the narrative to suggest even that the authors expected any reader to believe that

It's a bit like me copying the story of Mohamed popping a few things of my own in there, and then claiming greater credibility simply because more than one account exists.. it's utter nonsense.  

I suspect you have been bewitched by your faith to believe whatever torturous twisted evidence is cast you way.  You have made non evidence,  evidence in your eagerness to believe.

See a through k above for my evidentiary framework of the NT.

So you keep unconvincingly asserting, and yet... 

Seems to be question begging: miracles don't happen, the NT can't be evidence of miracles, see...miracles don't happen.

 

Well it would seem logical that the evidence of a god that does miracles would be, well miracles, or am i missing something ?
Many religions claim miracles from their chosen deity, should we believe those too, simply because they are claimed ?  

To deny that the NT is not evidence is just special pleading on a grand scale.

To ask for evidence though is just plain sensible, asking for evidence of such a living god, don't forget you are not claiming a god who just did miracles then, but also one that does miracles now.

The events of the NT are the most written about (from the actual period) 

Being the most written about does not mean true that's just special pleading, a bit like saying X-Billion believers can't be wrong.

and therefore the most evidenced ancient events in all of history.

Most re-written or studied does not mean more evidence, it means they were fantastic stories even in a world riddled with ridiculous beliefs.

In addition, we have an unbroken series of writings from the first century all the way to present day to trace the beliefs and reinforce the original claims.

You mean people who believe ? that's only evidence that people believed something, not a argument for it's truth, again it's like saying X Billion have believed, therefore it must be true, such nonsense.

Many other religions claim many miracles for many gods throughout history, should we believe them also ?

Your point of showing this list over and over is very weak. If the evidence of the NT satisfies a person's personal threshold--then it follows logically that the God of the OT is real. In other words, the evidence for your list is the NT.

It points to the nature of the god you claim to serve in the same book you count as evidence, is it therefore wrong of us to expect that all these attributes should be true (if your god exists) and that there should be evidence of them being true.?

[Brian37]

Not at all. In fact, the only way to verify the supernatural is interaction with the natural. The more people that see it the more likely the interaction. The more interaction over a period (especially a period with some context--like the NT), the likelihood increases exponentially (probabilities and all). What is not falsifiable is an entirely personal experience (Mohammed/Joe Smith).

Exactly what we are looking for in empirical evidence of god's interaction with humanity, care to offer some? Witness's from 2,000 years ago that we know little about outside of a collection of books written after the events does not count as empirical evidence that we can trust, otherwise why not believe in all claimed gods ?

Christians are claiming that we not only have the god described long ago, but that the very same god interacts with us today, do you have an empirical evidence you so gracefully highlighted ?

My understanding was that Joe was forbidden to show anyone the plates--and never did.

This perhaps come down to your ignorance of other faith claims, which are in every way as convincing (or unconvincing) as your own, and have witnesses to the events, and that we know exactly who they are and even what they looked like, and a mass following that claim miracles much more convincing that Christian testimony, and yet still not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_witnesses

Yes we do know. The NT is the most examined series of documents in all of history--by many orders of magnitude.

Being the most examined does not make anything true

You are latching on to fringe theories to support your point.

 

So you assert.

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)

Nobody is denying that a teacher called Jesus lived and started a cult just like nobody denies that Joseph Smith or Mohamed existed
Or that the authorities of the time regarded it as a cult. The only real account of Jesus himself outside the bible Joesphus, is thought to have been tampered with by the early church making it very unreliable.  And that from stories rather than personal experience.

b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry
c. They presided over the early church
d. This early church instructed Paul
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)

But now aren't we relying on the bible to  prove the bible, without first proving the bible to be an accurate true account. ?  
It's clear even from Lukes account  (Synoptic) Gospel that it is a copied account of what he was already told, and he had prepared a copy of other stories, the Synoptic gospels cannot be regarded as accumulative evidence. Nor were any of the gospels written from a first person perspective, nor is there anything in the narrative to suggest even that the authors expected any reader to believe that

It's a bit like me copying the story of Mohamed popping a few things of my own in there, and then claiming greater credibility simply because more than one account exists.. it's utter nonsense.  

I suspect you have been bewitched by your faith to believe whatever torturous twisted evidence is cast you way.  You have made non evidence,  evidence in your eagerness to believe.

See a through k above for my evidentiary framework of the NT.

So you keep unconvincingly asserting, and yet... 

Seems to be question begging: miracles don't happen, the NT can't be evidence of miracles, see...miracles don't happen.

 

Well it would seem logical that the evidence of a god that does miracles would be, well miracles, or am i missing something ?
Many religions claim miracles from their chosen deity, should we believe those too, simply because they are claimed ?  

To deny that the NT is not evidence is just special pleading on a grand scale.

To ask for evidence though is just plain sensible, asking for evidence of such a living god, don't forget you are not claiming a god who just did miracles then, but also one that does miracles now.

The events of the NT are the most written about (from the actual period) 

Being the most written about does not mean true that's just special pleading, a bit like saying X-Billion believers can't be wrong.

and therefore the most evidenced ancient events in all of history.

Most re-written or studied does not mean more evidence, it means they were fantastic stories even in a world riddled with ridiculous beliefs.

In addition, we have an unbroken series of writings from the first century all the way to present day to trace the beliefs and reinforce the original claims.

You mean people who believe ? that's only evidence that people believed something, not a argument for it's truth, again it's like saying X Billion have believed, therefore it must be true, such nonsense.

Many other religions claim many miracles for many gods throughout history, should we believe them also ?

Your point of showing this list over and over is very weak. If the evidence of the NT satisfies a person's personal threshold--then it follows logically that the God of the OT is real. In other words, the evidence for your list is the NT.

It points to the nature of the god you claim to serve in the same book you count as evidence, is it therefore wrong of us to expect that all these attributes should be true (if your god exists) and that there should be evidence of them being true.?

Um actually there is dispute over the claimed individual character named Jesus.

What cannot be disputed is that a man, or group of people(MORE LIKELY) started a new splinter Jewish sect, which DID gain popularity over time, otherwise Christianity would not exist today. The way the New Testament reads it points to a common name being slapped to a movement after the fact. The letters that spell out "Jesus" are never mentioned in the OT. And even the earliest NT writings known were written way after the alleged time of the Character mentioned in the bible. 

But, the magic baby/zombie god death claims are not true, and never were, regardless.

The same can be said with Buddha. Most Buddhists WILL zealously argue that he DID exist, which is pointless. When you look at the geography of where the first claims are made, they are in very close proximity or in India, and when you look at the overlap of motifs like Karma and reincarnation and even Vedic writings, it becomes clear that a person, or group of people were trying to ditch Hinduism and create a new religion.

Just like the Early Hebrews incorporated old Canaanite themes and vilified polytheism at the same time.

[SteveII]

Not at all. In fact, the only way to verify the supernatural is interaction with the natural. The more people that see it the more likely the interaction. The more interaction over a period (especially a period with some context--like the NT), the likelihood increases exponentially (probabilities and all). What is not falsifiable is an entirely personal experience (Mohammed/Joe Smith).

Exactly what we are looking for in empirical evidence of god's interaction with humanity, care to offer some? Witness's from 2,000 years ago that we know little about outside of a collection of books written after the events does not count as empirical evidence that we can trust, otherwise why not believe in all claimed gods ?

The events of the NT are exactly what you are asking for. Then you simply say that "does not count". Your measurement is entirely subjective and based on the content because it does not matter what you say, if there were two more books in the NT with two more people, you would have the same answer. I don't care if you don't find my list a through k compelling--it is evidence of the existence of God. It might not meet your standard for individual proof--because 1) your standard is more skeptical, 2) you really don't know exactly what you are talking about with the NT, or 3) because you have a bias (or most likely a combination of the three). 

Christians are claiming that we not only have the god described long ago, but that the very same god interacts with us today, do you have an empirical evidence you so gracefully highlighted ?

There are billions who will tell you their experiences are real. Are you going to accept that? Are you going to accept that minor miracle happen every day? No, you have dismissed that body of evidence with a little circular reasoning: experiences are not real because there is no supernatural, therefore there is no evidence of the supernatural. 

My understanding was that Joe was forbidden to show anyone the plates--and never did.

This perhaps come down to your ignorance of other faith claims, which are in every way as convincing (or unconvincing) as your own, and have witnesses to the events, and that we know exactly who they are and even what they looked like, and a mass following that claim miracles much more convincing that Christian testimony, and yet still not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_witnesses

We were both right. An angel separately showed the plates to the other three. We are right back to individual experiences with nothing public for people to witness. A very very different category of claim altogether from the NT. 

Yes we do know. The NT is the most examined series of documents in all of history--by many orders of magnitude.

Being the most examined does not make anything true

Kind of throws cold water on the argument that "well, we just don't know about the sources..."

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)

Nobody is denying that a teacher called Jesus lived and started a cult just like nobody denies that Joseph Smith or Mohamed existed
Or that the authorities of the time regarded it as a cult. The only real account of Jesus himself outside the bible Joesphus, is thought to have been tampered with by the early church making it very unreliable.  And that from stories rather than personal experience.

b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry
c. They presided over the early church
d. This early church instructed Paul
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)

But now aren't we relying on the bible to  prove the bible, without first proving the bible to be an accurate true account. ?  
It's clear even from Lukes account  (Synoptic) Gospel that it is a copied account of what he was already told, and he had prepared a copy of other stories, the Synoptic gospels cannot be regarded as accumulative evidence. Nor were any of the gospels written from a first person perspective, nor is there anything in the narrative to suggest even that the authors expected any reader to believe that

Ah, but you are just spouting off subjective requirements of the gospels. The fact remains that there were 4 gospels that were accepted by the first and second century church as accurate. They would have know the provenance of each. There is also a lot of evidence of earlier writings from textual critics (like Q). There is also the twin series of facts that Paul enunciates the gospel message in his letters long before the gospels were written and there were multiple churches that existed across the Roman empire that believed these thing--long before the gospels. Another fact is that all the gospels were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses and rebuttal witnesses. The cumulative case is very solid despite your subjective requirements imposed after the fact.  

It's a bit like me copying the story of Mohamed popping a few things of my own in there, and then claiming greater credibility simply because more than one account exists.. it's utter nonsense. 

That's a huge assertion with no evidence. 

Seems to be question begging: miracles don't happen, the NT can't be evidence of miracles, see...miracles don't happen.

 
Well it would seem logical that the evidence of a god that does miracles would be, well miracles, or am i missing something ?
Many religions claim miracles from their chosen deity, should we believe those too, simply because they are claimed ?   

Depends how many claim to have seen them and over what time period, was there a greater context for the claims, what were the odds of seeing the after-effect if there were not any miracles (multiple writings, mobilization of large numbers of people, established churches that repeated the claim within a decade or two--despite persecution), what was in it for the people who repeated the claim, and lastly, what was the underlying message of the claim (was the message compelling and instructed love/respect/self-sacrifice/and humility)?

To deny that the NT is not evidence is just special pleading on a grand scale.

To ask for evidence though is just plain sensible, asking for evidence of such a living god, don't forget you are not claiming a god who just did miracles then, but also one that does miracles now.

answered all this in my statements above. 

The events of the NT are the most written about (from the actual period) 

Being the most written about does not mean true that's just special pleading, a bit like saying X-Billion believers can't be wrong.

No, that is a simple statement of fact: these are the most written about (from the actual period) series of events -- 27 documents describing a time period spanning 70 or so years. AND then we have unbroken series of documents from the first century on to today--making sure there is no revisionist history. 

and therefore the most evidenced ancient events in all of history.

Most re-written or studied does not mean more evidence, it means they were fantastic stories even in a world riddled with ridiculous beliefs.

Not re-written. The NT is though by scholars to be as much as 99% as the original--with the differences being non-theology related. 

In addition, we have an unbroken series of writings from the first century all the way to present day to trace the beliefs and reinforce the original claims.

You mean people who believe ? that's only evidence that people believed something, not a argument for it's truth, again it's like saying X Billion have believed, therefore it must be true, such nonsense.

Many other religions claim many miracles for many gods throughout history, should we believe them also ?

You keep bringing that up like it's an answer. To what are you referring to? I can't show you why you are wrong when you pose vague comparisons. 

Your point of showing this list over and over is very weak. If the evidence of the NT satisfies a person's personal threshold--then it follows logically that the God of the OT is real. In other words, the evidence for your list is the NT.

It points to the nature of the god you claim to serve in the same book you count as evidence, is it therefore wrong of us to expect that all these attributes should be true (if your god exists) and that there should be evidence of them being true.?

Yes, you should expect they are true (as I said). The list is not proof or even evidence. It is a description of God--which to even consider would require belief in God. I continue to fail to see your point.

[possibletarian]

The events of the NT are exactly what you are asking for. Then you simply say that "does not count". Your measurement is entirely subjective and based on the content because it does not matter what you say, if there were two more books in the NT with two more people, you would have the same answer. I don't care if you don't find my list a through k compelling--it is evidence of the existence of God. It might not meet your standard for individual proof--because 1) your standard is more skeptical, 2) you really don't know exactly what you are talking about with the NT, or 3) because you have a bias (or most likely a combination of the three). 

Frankly Steve they are not exactly hat I was looking for, accounts of miraculous happenings, from miraculous creatures that one of many religions claim but fail to prove simply is not evidence, unless of course you already believe.

Of course you don't care that I don't find you list compelling, why would you? In exactly the same way as a Muslim, Buddhist, Mormon, Jew, Hindu, the list could go on, none of those would find my scepticism of their faith and holy writings compelling. They also would claim I was not knowing what I was talking about, biased and blind and a combination of all three.

There are billions who will tell you their experiences are real. Are you going to accept that? Are you going to accept that minor miracle happen every day? No, you have dismissed that body of evidence with a little circular reasoning: experiences are not real because there is no supernatural, therefore there is no evidence of the supernatural.

And there are billions of religious people in other religions that will tell me their experiences are real, A Muslim, Jew, Hindu and so on.
I personally doubt i will ever meet billions of people to prove that claim, suffice it to say many religious people have experiences that they are willing to share. It's not so much that I doubt they have had experiences, after all I had many experiences when I was a Christian, but now see through them.

We were both right. An angel separately showed the plates to the other three. We are right back to individual experiences with nothing public for people to witness. A very very different category of claim altogether from the NT. 

Regardless lots of witnesses, that we can  1) Name (we know they lived)  2) what they looked like  3) we knew where they came from and their history, even their families. In an evidential sense it's way more compelling that the mystery surrounding the gospels,
But I suspect just like the gospels, and lacking other evidence, a lie.
And again a religion spawned from it that is alive today, who testify to miracles and experiences.

Being the most examined does not make anything true
Kind of throws cold water on the argument that "well, we just don't know about the sources..."

In what way? the statement is absolutely true regardless.

Nobody is denying that a teacher called Jesus lived and started a cult just like nobody denies that Joseph Smith or Mohamed existed
Or that the authorities of the time regarded it as a cult. The only real account of Jesus himself outside the bible Joesphus, is thought to have been tampered with by the early church making it very unreliable.  And that from stories rather than personal experience.


But now aren't we relying on the bible to  prove the bible, without first proving the bible to be an accurate true account. ?  
It's clear even from Lukes account  (Synoptic) Gospel that it is a copied account of what he was already told, and he had prepared a copy of other stories, the Synoptic gospels cannot be regarded as accumulative evidence. Nor were any of the gospels written from a first person perspective, nor is there anything in the narrative to suggest even that the authors expected any reader to believe that

Ah, but you are just spouting off subjective requirements of the gospels. The fact remains that there were 4 gospels that were accepted by the first and second century church as accurate.

As was the book of Mormon, The Quran and I'm sure other teaching too, the fact that early Christians believed means little given the abundance of religions and cults  throughout the world.

They would have know the provenance of each. There is also a lot of evidence of earlier writings from textual critics (like Q). There is also the twin series of facts that Paul enunciates the gospel message in his letters long before the gospels were written and there were multiple churches that existed across the Roman empire that believed these thing--long before the gospels. Another fact is that all the gospels were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses and rebuttal witnesses. The cumulative case is very solid despite your subjective requirements imposed after the fact.

The earliest we have is about the year 70. some time after the death of the character of the story way beyond the time where people would write rebuttals or could be said to have recollected an account of the life of Jesus, by that time the myth of Jesus would be well established.
His own people didn't believe him and had him executed, isn't that rebuttal enough ?  

It's a bit like me copying the story of Mohamed popping a few things of my own in there, and then claiming greater credibility simply because more than one account exists.. it's utter nonsense. 

That's a huge assertion with no evidence. 

Yes, now you know how we feel about your assertions.

Well it would seem logical that the evidence of a god that does miracles would be, well miracles, or am i missing something ?
Many religions claim miracles from their chosen deity, should we believe those too, simply because they are claimed ?   


Depends how many claim to have seen them and over what time period, was there a greater context for the claims, what were the odds of seeing the after-effect if there were not any miracles (multiple writings, mobilization of large numbers of people, established churches that repeated the claim within a decade or two--despite persecution), what was in it for the people who repeated the claim, and lastly, what was the underlying message of the claim (was the message compelling and instructed love/respect/self-sacrifice/and humility)?

Sorry Steve that was word salad, so do many other religions and Christian was not the first and wont be the last religiously indoctrinated people to hold to their faith despite being persecuted.  Nor is it the only one that claims peace and love as it's prize.

To ask for evidence though is just plain sensible, asking for evidence of such a living god, don't forget you are not claiming a god who just did miracles then, but also one that does miracles now.

answered all this in my statements above.

 

You think ?

No, that is a simple statement of fact: these are the most written about (from the actual period) series of events -- 27 documents describing a time period spanning 70 or so years. AND then we have unbroken series of documents from the first century on to today--making sure there is no revisionist history.

So why mention it at all, it bears no witness to the truth of what is said. 

Most re-written or studied does not mean more evidence, it means they were fantastic stories even in a world riddled with ridiculous beliefs.

Not re-written. The NT is though by scholars to be as much as 99% as the original--with the differences being non-theology related.

Yes, but again that does not make it  true. And of course it worth noting that many writings of that time were destroyed and it took a while for an official cannon to be recognised, by that time only books that were in agreement with church doctrine of the time were kept.

And yet again none of this is witness to the truth of scripture

You mean people who believe ? that's only evidence that people believed something, not a argument for it's truth, again it's like saying X Billion have believed, therefore it must be true, such nonsense.

Many other religions claim many miracles for many gods throughout history, should we believe them also ?


You keep bringing that up like it's an answer. To what are you referring to? I can't show you why you are wrong when you pose vague comparisons.

I'm not the one claiming miracles, you are. I don't believe they happen just that many claim them, Show me a single miracle with evidence

It points to the nature of the god you claim to serve in the same book you count as evidence, is it therefore wrong of us to expect that all these attributes should be true (if your god exists) and that there should be evidence of them being true.?

Yes, you should expect they are true (as I said). The list is not proof or even evidence. It is a description of God--which to even consider would require belief in God. I continue to fail to see your point.

It's a description of a very active god, but alas, the world carries on ..just as if there is no god.
And what's more his disciples rely on 2,000 year old writings.

Bottom line Steve is that a 'Mighty God' should not require the weak lame excuses that his supporters give to prove his existence, that fact that he requires these weak arguments is testament to the kind of god he is.. a created one.

[Mister Agenda]

The list of stupid beliefs that cannot be proven false is potentially infinite. I don't think that with a standard that low, crossing the bar of 'not proven to be false' alone would not bring a belief up to a point that it could reasonably be called rational.

I am not saying this is what makes a rational argument. I am saying that in addition to all the reasons that I have outlined here countless times why I believe that list, you cannot show they are false beliefs (or even likely to be false)--so they remain rationally justified beliefs. To say it another way, if you had a way to show they were false, yet I still believed them to be true, then they would not be rationally justified beliefs. 

Unfalsifiable beliefs (that is, if they aren't true, there's no way to prove it) don't fall under the heading of 'rationally justified'. It wouldn't take much to falsify my opinion that God is very unlikely to be real; it would be trivial for an omnipotent being to prove me wrong if it cared to. What would falsify your belief that God is real?

That's an interesting story. Too bad your list of dodgy assertions doesn't have that level of credibility going for it. It matches what I suggested for a series of justified probabilistic references, though; but I get you can't tell the difference.

Assertions? Like I told Kevin, it is ridiculous to demand formal arguments every time I mention the reasons for my well-known beliefs. 

It's not ridiculous to note that nothing you've ever presented in support of those assertions has held up to scrutiny. You talk as though you've previously made the case for those assertions successfully. It wasn't successful in persuading anyone who wasn't already convinced of your position already.

Your 'cumulative case' is more like:

Say I tell my daughter Santa Clause is real and he's coming down the chimney at our house on Christmas Eve to leave presents (she has a belief). She hears a noise on the roof that night, a sort of clattering sound. Later she hears some noise downstairs and sees someone messing with boxes around the Christmas tree. The next morning she sees that indeed, presents have been delivered. Her original belief has been strengthened by more facts that are not themselves conclusive, but fit the framework. 'Cumulative'.  :

Bad parody. I can offer a hundred defeaters for Santa Claus existing. So, while a child's belief might be rationally justified in the absence of those, it will not be if I share them.

And I can offer a hundred excuses to defend Santa, because Santa is unfalsifiable by the same standards God is (keep backing up the claim until there's nothing left that can be disproven; Santa is a normally-invisible spirit and his workshop is on another plane of existence, and only those presents that are unaccounted for are from him; for instance). The child's belief is understandable, but not rational. She's taken your word that such an entity exists without critically examining the fundamental assumption that such a fantastic being is real in the first place. The 'evidence' that follows is built on light, powdery, snow that can never accumulate enough to make Santa Claus being real a rational belief.

[Abaddon_ire]

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)

No. we don't know that at all. There were a shedload of wandering rabbis at the time.

b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry

Nope.

c. They presided over the early church

Nope.

d. This early church instructed Paul

The same Paul who made up crap on the basis of a vision that nobody else saw. Political opportunism.

e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)

Paul can write whatever he wants much like Tolkien or Rowling. Doesn't mean it is real.

f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels

Do you accept the koran? Using the same reasons, you should.

g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day

How do you know "Luke" had anything to do with it? All that happened long after he was dead.

h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)

Wrong.

i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book

Name them. You cannot.

j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.

Oh yes there is. Historically speaking, there is doubt that paul even existed.

k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)

Except that they don't. They describe the very first schism between James the supposed brother of Jesus and Paul. And such schisms continue such that there are something in the region of 30,000 denominations. To quote Fr. Jack, that will be an ecumenical matter.

There are eight witnesses to Joseph Smiths so called golden plates, and the three witnesses who claimed they had heard gods voice instructing Joseph Smith, what's more we know who these people are, even what they looked like.  

They were of course frauds there is no reason to believe them any more than NT writers. Or the Koran writers.

My understanding was that Joe was forbidden to show anyone the plates--and never did. 

Why might that be? Did you ever stop to wonder?

See a through k above for my evidentiary framework of the NT. 

You have no evidence for the existence of any god, not yahweh, not allah, not any of the countless thousands of claimed gods.

No evidence at all. If you had any, you would have presented it already.

[possibletarian]

There are eight witnesses to Joseph Smiths so called golden plates, and the three witnesses who claimed they had heard gods voice instructing Joseph Smith, what's more we know who these people are, even what they looked like.  

They were of course frauds there is no reason to believe them any more than NT writers. Or the Koran writers.

You actually quoted me here not Steve. However I was making pretty much the same point, that why not believe the book of Mormon if you believe the bible.

[Abaddon_ire]

There are eight witnesses to Joseph Smiths so called golden plates, and the three witnesses who claimed they had heard gods voice instructing Joseph Smith, what's more we know who these people are, even what they looked like.  

They were of course frauds there is no reason to believe them any more than NT writers. Or the Koran writers.

You actually quoted me here not Steve. However I was making pretty much the same point, that why not believe the book of Mormon if you believe the bible.

Did I bork that quote up? Damn. Oh well pobodies nerfect.

[KevinM1]

Steve, so long as you understand that the reasons for your well-known beliefs are utterly fallacious, I'm happy.