Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[Anomalocaris]

You are begging so many questions that I can only conclude you are arguing in bad faith.

Please enlighten me where there is a question begging premise--especially in light of the inductive structure of the argument. 

However, I will offer a couple general remarks.  First, any "truths" you claim must be more probable than alternative explanations for the same observations.  This is why mere interpretations are never evidence.  Second, any "truths" you claim must also not be in conflict with other truths with substantial evidence supporting them.  Your "truths" fail badly on both counts.

If you are not familiar with the alternative explanations and evidence, I suggest you do a bit more research.  If you are unwilling to do so, then you are just rationalizing what you prefer to believe.

Wait! You have an 'alternative explanation' to the NT that has evidence? That would be a first. See, most alternate explanations are ad hoc theories that only address one aspect. No theory addresses all of them. So, which one do you like?

Wait! There is an 'alternate explanation' to billions of people's experience? Is it a billion explanations or just one covers everyone?

Wait! There is an 'alternate explanation' why anything exists? Do tell.

Wait! There is an 'alternate explanation' for where the universe came from? Do tell.

Wait! There is an 'alternate explanation' for consciousness? Do tell.

We can just start with that.

You are living in a later part of human history than the 17th century? Do tell.

[Amarok]

Wait! You have an 'alternative explanation' to the NT that has evidence? That would be a first. See, most alternate explanations are ad hoc theories that only address one aspect. No theory addresses all of them. So, which one do you like?

Wait! There is an 'alternate explanation' to billions of people's experience? Is it a billion explanations or just one covers everyone?

Wait! There is an 'alternate explanation' why anything exists? Do tell.

Wait! There is an 'alternate explanation' for where the universe came from? Do tell.

Wait! There is an 'alternate explanation' for consciousness? Do tell.

We can just start with that.

Too bad we don't need one because god done it isn't an  explanation that needs an alternative

---

Please enlighten me where there is a question begging premise--especially in light of the inductive structure of the argument. 


Wait! You have an 'alternative explanation' to the NT that has evidence? That would be a first. See, most alternate explanations are ad hoc theories that only address one aspect. No theory addresses all of them. So, which one do you like?

Wait! There is an 'alternate explanation' to billions of people's experience? Is it a billion explanations or just one covers everyone?

Wait! There is an 'alternate explanation' why anything exists? Do tell.

Wait! There is an 'alternate explanation' for where the universe came from? Do tell.

Wait! There is an 'alternate explanation' for consciousness? Do tell.

We can just start with that.

You are living in a later part of human history than the 17th century?  Do tell.

Oh no god done it solves everything 

---

Wait! You have an 'alternative explanation' to the NT that has evidence? That would be a first. See, most alternate explanations are ad hoc theories that only address one aspect. No theory addresses all of them. So, which one do you like?

Nope your silly magic book has been explained into oblivion not ad hocs needed in fact quite opposite it only is believed by lies and fallacies and nothing more .

[Rahn127]

We can construct the same framework and examples using a Superman or Spiderman comic book.

Next

That's a very foolish statement and shows that you have no idea what you are talking about and aren't/incapable of grasping the actual moving parts of a philosophical discussion. But thanks for the reply--I like to know where the atheists all fit on the discussion-fitness scale.

My "foolish" statement doesn't make it false.
You believe Jesus was a real person.
I believe the character in the story book was a fictional representation of several different stories.

Supernatural stories have no basis in reality.

It's not worth my time to comment on everyone of your attempts at making some kind of sense from a fictional story book.

By the way, Mathew, Mark, Luke & John were not written by Mathew, Mark, Luke & John. Those names were made up. The authors are unknown.

Your attempts at rational thought are as spammy as that wall of incoherent text.

[RoadRunner79]

I think that you are equivocating on the word probability here.

Why would you think that?

It seems to be confusing statistical probability (or frequency of occurrence), with saying that it likely didn't happen.

[polymath257]

And how do you separate fact from fiction? Quotes from the Bible are mere CLAIMS until you first prove that these events really happened. You can make similar or identical claims from the Koran, the Book of Mormon or the ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead.

Why don't you think the events of the NT happened? Here is why I do--go ahead and prove me wrong.

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
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.

Why might one believe the inference? Like I said many time, it is part of a cumulative case. There are a host of reasons not related to the NT why one might be less skeptical than you.

a. Jesus probably existed, just like several of the wandering preachers both before and after him. That doesn't mean the stories associated with him are true.

b. c. The problem is that we have no actual writings from either of them. We have some writings *attributed* to them, but given the way that writings were made up in the second century, their validity is very suspect.

d. - g. The problem here is that we only have one side of the story. We *know* that Paul's interpretation was very different than the rest of the early church. We *know* that many in the early church did not believe in a literal resurrection.

h. - k. Some did and some did not. There were many differing stories from very early on. This alone decreases the strength of your position.  In particular, from very early on, there was strong disagreement about whether Jesus was actually human, whether there was an actual resurrection, just how much he differed from other wandering preachers in that area, etc.

When we consider the weight of the evidence, including the evidence counter to your position and together with the long line of superstitious beliefs in the Roman empire and in that region in particular, we have to admit that it is very unlikely that the stories that have come down to us are accurate and not tainted by later political intrigues.

[Amarok]

That's a very foolish statement and shows that you have no idea what you are talking about and aren't/incapable of grasping the actual moving parts of a philosophical discussion. But thanks for the reply--I like to know where the atheists all fit on the discussion-fitness scale.

My "foolish" statement doesn't make it false.
You believe Jesus was a real person.
I believe the character in the story book was a fictional representation of several different stories.

Supernatural stories have no basis in reality.

It's not worth my time to comment on everyone of your attempts at making some kind of sense from a fictional story book.

By the way, Mathew, Mark, Luke & John were not written by Mathew, Mark, Luke & John. Those names were made up. The authors are unknown.

Your attempts at rational thought are as spammy as that wall of incoherent text.

Well you have hit milestone my friend . Like most people on this forum you have been told that because you don't buy Steve novel length rants is because you lack understanding rather then Steve's bullocks not making any sense. Welcome to the forum

[polymath257]

Why would you think that?

It seems to be confusing statistical probability (or frequency of occurrence), with saying that it likely didn't happen.

Well, given the types of things people believe and how supersitious they tend to be, that *does* decrease the likelihood considerably.

I would say that it is virtually certain the 'miracles' never happened as told.

[RoadRunner79]

It seems to be confusing statistical probability (or frequency of occurrence), with saying that it likely didn't happen.

Well, given the types of things people believe and how supersitious they tend to be, that *does* decrease the likelihood considerably.

I would say that it is virtually certain the 'miracles' never happened as told.

Still equivocating the two terms.

[Amarok]

Why don't you think the events of the NT happened? Here is why I do--go ahead and prove me wrong.

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
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.

Why might one believe the inference? Like I said many time, it is part of a cumulative case. There are a host of reasons not related to the NT why one might be less skeptical than you.

a. Jesus probably existed, just like several of the wandering preachers both before and after him. That doesn't mean the stories associated with him are true.

b. c. The problem is that we have no actual writings from either of them. We have some writings *attributed* to them, but given the way that writings were made up in the second century, their validity is very suspect.

d. - g. The problem here is that we only have one side of the story. We *know* that Paul's interpretation was very different than the rest of the early church. We *know* that many in the early church did not believe in a literal resurrection.

h. - k. Some did and some did not. There were many differing stories from very early on. This alone decreases the strength of your position.  In particular, from very early on, there was strong disagreement about whether Jesus was actually human, whether there was an actual resurrection, just how much he differed from other wandering preachers in that area, etc.

When we consider the weight of the evidence, including the evidence counter to your position and together with the long line of superstitious beliefs in the Roman empire and in that region in particular, we have to admit that it is very unlikely that the stories that have come down to us are accurate and not tainted by later political intrigues.

Wow Steve is troting out a heap of stuff that in no way challenges a mythological Jesus in no way supports a historic one and is mostly untrue or a fallacious

By the way good response poly 

[polymath257]

Well, given the types of things people believe and how supersitious they tend to be, that *does* decrease the likelihood considerably.

I would say that it is virtually certain the 'miracles' never happened as told.

Still equivocating the two terms.

Not at all. I am not using frequency statistics for this evaluation, except as evidence for how gullible people can be.