God is so quiet

[Cyberman]

That we don't know everything doesn't come close to meaning that we know nothing at all, nor does it mean we get to make up stuff and then try to retrofit it into reality.

If "God" is the best explanation for why anything at all exists, and you are positing that "God" exists, what is the best explanation for why "God" exists?

[SteveII]

"Aside from the people who wrote dozens of individual documents (spanning decades) about it, we don't have any corroborating evidence". Good argument!! The fact is if there were 30 or 32 books/letters, you would say the same thing. There would never be enough because you exclude anyone who believed what they saw and then related it. You are begging the question because you assume that if a person believed it, they have little or no credibility. 

You are aware that there were many more gospels than the ones that made it into the bible you have today, right?
What disqualified some?

Could the ones we do have nowadays have been cooked up from a similar social environment as the others, but they have the merit of conveying a similar enough message that they could be bound in one tome?

Every one would have its own reasons--which are not hard to understand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Non...al_gospels). The first and second century Christians identified the four we have as authoritative. There was never any controversy over them from the beginning. Deciding on the canon was a formality--the list had been in use for hundreds of years already. 

Not at all. Eyewitness testimony is ALL the evidence you can ever have of ANY historical event. To claim that it is not enough is special pleading. The typical response is to deny eyewitness testimony is evidence--and that is a crock of shit to go along with your bowl of special pleading. 

The problems begin when the texts we have look more like tales, than eyewitness accounts... even if the author claims that he got those tales from real witnesses.
Combine this with the knack they had to make up whole gospels and the credibility factor lowers quite substantially.

I don't doubt that such messianic stories were floating around in the population.
I do doubt if they represented any actual witnessing of events, or if they were just fantastic tales mangled with bits and pieces from regular life.

I have used this before, so this is not directed at you, but is perhaps a helpful answer nevertheless. 

Here is an inductive line of reasoning:

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 (for a number of years before he started his own efforts)
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)
THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.

Before you jump all over some of the statements above, please realize 1) you do not have proof against any of them (finding someone to agree with you is not proof) and 2) it is inductive reasoning and therefore it is not claiming the list is proof of anything--it is only claiming the inference is reasonable. It is NOT a deductive argument which claims fact, fact, therefore fact. So it is a matter of opinion whether you think the list supports the conclusion or not.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hmn, you used it before..how did it work before?

You do realize that inductive arguments aren't just opinions....right? There are still requirements. Imma sum that whole bit up;

"People tell stories, therefore it's reasonable to believe that stories are true".

-but is it?

[SteveII]

That we don't know everything doesn't come close to meaning that we know nothing at all, nor does it mean we get to make up stuff and then try to retrofit it into reality.

If "God" is the best explanation for why anything at all exists, and you are positing that "God" exists,  what is the best explanation for why "God" exists?

If God exists, he does so necessarily (as in could not have been otherwise). Because of this, it makes no sense to ask what it the explanation of God. Either he always did exist or he does not. The question is: are there reasons to think that God does exist? I gave three categories of reasons. Incontrovertible proof? No. Reasons? Yes.

[GrandizerII]

That we don't know everything doesn't come close to meaning that we know nothing at all, nor does it mean we get to make up stuff and then try to retrofit it into reality.

If "God" is the best explanation for why anything at all exists, and you are positing that "God" exists,  what is the best explanation for why "God" exists?

If God exists, he does so necessarily (as in could not have been otherwise). Because of this, it makes no sense to ask what it the explanation of God. Either he always did exist or he does not. The question is: are there reasons to think that God does exist? I gave three categories of reasons. Incontrovertible proof? No. Reasons? Yes.

And if the universe/cosmos exists, it does so necessarily (it could not have been otherwise, especially if we include multiverses in the picture). We have clear evidence the universe exists. God, on the other hand, we have virtually nil evidence of.

Inductive arguments, by the way, doesn't mean you can invoke entities out of nowhere.

[Cyberman]

That we don't know everything doesn't come close to meaning that we know nothing at all, nor does it mean we get to make up stuff and then try to retrofit it into reality.

If "God" is the best explanation for why anything at all exists, and you are positing that "God" exists,  what is the best explanation for why "God" exists?

If God exists, he does so necessarily (as in could not have been otherwise). Because of this, it makes no sense to ask what it the explanation of God. Either he always did exist or he does not. The question is: are there reasons to think that God does exist? I gave three categories of reasons. Incontrovertible proof? No. Reasons? Yes.

You're palming a card here. You went from 'if "God" exists then it must exist' to 'if "God" must exist then it does exist' without so much as a pause for breath.

What is the justification for entertaining the concept at all? Btonze- and Iron-age man lacked our understanding of the nature of reality and our tools to investigate it, at least to the degree that we can. They can be forgiven for seeing gods, demons, spirits etc in every shadow and every tree. We haven't had the luxury of such an excuse for the last couple of centuries.

[Cyberman]

God, on the other hand, we have virtually nil evidence of.

I'll just chip in here, if I may. I don't want anyone to misconstrue what you're saying. When we speak of there being no evidence of these things, what we mean, and what we really should be saying, is that there's no compelling evidence. Virtually anything can be offered up as evidence - a tree falling over could be evidence of an invisible demon attack. But is it enough on which to base a conclusion? That's where the hard work comes in. Unfortunately, far too many people are willing to do it; they seem to think it's enough just to give their evidence and win the game.

[GrandizerII]

God, on the other hand, we have virtually nil evidence of.

I'll just chip in here, if I may. I don't want anyone to misconstrue what you're saying. When we speak of there being no evidence of these things, what we mean, and what we really should be saying, is that there's no compelling evidence. Virtually anything can be offered up as evidence - a tree falling over could be evidence of an invisible demon attack. But is it enough on which to base a conclusion? That's where the hard work comes in. Unfortunately, far too many people are willing to do it; they seem to think it's enough just to give their evidence and win the game.

I would argue a tree falling over is evidence that something made it fall over, but what that likely is should be decided by further evidence and further investigation.

And if we're just going to do best explanation arguments, then demons would definitely not be the best explanation exactly because in order for them to be the best explanation we have to assume that they do exist (we lack [compelling] evidence that they do). Human beings, on the other hand, we do know exist.

[SteveII]

If God exists, he does so necessarily (as in could not have been otherwise). Because of this, it makes no sense to ask what it the explanation of God. Either he always did exist or he does not. The question is: are there reasons to think that God does exist? I gave three categories of reasons. Incontrovertible proof? No. Reasons? Yes.

And if the universe/cosmos exists, it does so necessarily (it could not have been otherwise, especially if we include multiverses in the picture). We have clear evidence the universe exists. God, on the other hand, we have virtually nil evidence of.

Inductive arguments, by the way, doesn't mean you can invoke entities out of nowhere.

No, there is no logical reason that the physical universe/cosmos/multiverse exists necessarily. 'Necessarily' means "could not have been otherwise". We can all conceive of a state of affairs (a possible world) where nothing at all exists and another state of affairs where they do. Since we can conceive of both possible worlds as being broadly logically possible (not contradictory), the universe/cosmos/multiverse does not necessarily exist. If you are going to posit an eternal universe (or whatever), it is simply a brute fact (a fact with no explanation). That's the route most atheist philosophers would go. God is not a brute fact, because the concept of God defines it as needing no explanation (necessarily). 

The natural theology inductive arguments infer an entity that shares several characteristics of God. For example, for anything to exist a first cause must be at least uncaused, immaterial, timeless and has intentionality (otherwise would have caused the cosmos an infinite time ago).

[GrandizerII]

No, there is no logical reason that the physical universe/cosmos/multiverse exists necessarily. 'Necessarily' means "could not have been otherwise". We can all conceive of a state of affairs (a possible world) where nothing at all exists and another state of affairs where they do.

And yet I can conceive of God not existing in one possible world yet existing in another. So that's not how you argue against metaphysical necessity of an entity.

Suppose the cosmos is all that there can possibly be, with all possibilities actualized (via multiple universes and multiverses), then going with modal logic, there is no possible world where such a cosmos is not a thing.

Enough special pleading.