Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[Amarok]

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.

Seems legit to me 

[SteveII]

Here's a start...

P1. Miraculous effects have been specifically attributed to God (a supernatural being). Example, the paralytic healed by Jesus: "Mark 2:10...but I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all...". There are a hundred such examples in the NT where supernatural causation was declared or unmistakably inferred from the context.
P2. The resurrected Jesus was seen by as many as 500 people. Recently crucified people do not walk around and declare that they have conquered death and provided a way for man's redemption and as such, this is an obvious, rather big, supernatural claim.
     In support of P1 and P2, we have the following:
     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 (every other NT writer)
     c. They presided over the early church (Paul, Acts, first/second century docs)
     d. This early church instructed Paul (Paul, Acts)
     e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written). We can infer from this the source of these beliefs were a critical mass of people who believed these events really happened which actually prompted immediate and significant action on their part--to evangelize the Roman world.  
     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)
     l. Alternate theories of the NT and early church provenance lack explanatory power of the evidence on all sorts of levels
P3. The main promise of the NT is a series of specific supernatural effects on a person
P4. An untold number of people have reported such effects
P5. An untold number of people have reported minor miracles (defined as person-oriented miracles for which the goal is very narrow -- as opposed to the NT miracles which had broad application and goals). Ranges from healing, bringing about events/experiences/encounters/open doors, extraordinary strength/peace/perseverance, evangelistic success, etc.
P6. The question why anything at all exists has no naturalistic explanation (and most likely none forthcoming).
P7. The question of why the universe exists has no metaphysically sound naturalistic explanation. There is no reason to think one will be forthcoming.
P8. The question of why our universe has the narrow range of physical constants which seem necessary to form matter and conserve energy but under naturalism has no other explanation than fantastically amazing chance that would not be accepted in any other case.
P9. The question of why our minds seem non-physical but have causal powers over the physical undercuts hard naturalism and seems to have parallels to the concept of the supernatural (not that they are necessarily supernatural).
P10. The question of why there seems to exist a knowledge of basic morality in most people and most people believe it to be based on an objective set of principles (moral Platonism) not derived from any evolutionary process.
P11. There is physical evidence for the supernatural (from P1, P2)
P12. There is a persistent, growing, unbroken chain of personal reports of the supernatural (from P4, P5)
P13. There are reason to think that naturalism is an insufficient worldview and the existence of the supernatural has better explanatory powers in a variety of these gaps. (from P6, P7, P8, P9, P10)

THEREFORE: There are multiple lines of evidence/reasoning that infer the supernatural. Bayes showed us that that more data points that you have that infer a conclusion, the higher the probability the conclusion is true. Additionally, you can apply the math the other direction and examine the probability of these events all happening/reasoning given that the supernatural does not exist. I think there has also been sufficient connections made between cause and effect to understand the framework.

P1 and P2: Just  because we have a *story* that some strange things occurred doesn't mean we have evidence of it. We also have to weigh the likelihood of the story being accurate. In this case, it is quite low.teh story was written well after the purported events, gathered by people motivated to support their positions, and approved of by a Roman emperor. That doesn't help the case.

First, how do you think we acquire ALL historical information? Everything is evidence of something.

Second, you need to address why Paul was writing letters less than 20 years after Jesus to churches all over the Roman empire that BELIEVED the events that the gospels would LATER catalog. The ONLY explanation is that there existed a group of people that believed the events immediately after Jesus' resurrection. 

Third, your reference to what happened in the third century is a red herring--we are talking about what happened in the first century.

P3-P5: People being delusional and misinterpreting coincidences isn't evidence. Predicting that people will do so isn't evidence either.

Serious question begging. 

P6-P10: all argue from a position of ignorance and actually don't provide evidence for a deity either way. They are just-so stories that don't affect the probabilities.

So...there exists another explanation for these things!? Do tell. Seems to me the Christian worldview has built into it way more explanatory power than naturalism--and it is not 'just so'--it is foundation to the worldview--if there is a God, OF COURSE he created the universe. 

The funny thing is that you think that even if you can't put your finger on an explanation--one will be forthcoming. It literally seems impossible that anything we dream up get's past the "first cause" problem. 

 P11: Simply wrong

Assertion based on question-begging reasoning.

P12-P13: both based on fallacies. Since there is equal counter-evidence, the net effect is zero, or even against the position you hold.

No, there are no fallacies here--if you think so, name them. You have failed to explain away the evidence we have so we only have your question-begging assertions or mischaracterizations to compare my list to. 

The point is that we *know* that people are superstitious and prone to interpret coincidences and low probability events in a supernatural light. The fact that people generally interpret such in light of their local superstition gives evidence *against* the existence of deities that far outweighs the claims made *for* their existence: the net effect is that deities are *less* likely. 

Again, the net effect of ALL of your claims is to make something incredibly unlikely still incredibly unlikely.

More question begging. In every case above you have already assumed the event/experience did not happen and are a result of superstition. That's not a counter argument.

[RoadRunner79]

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.

The problem however is, that just because something doesn't happen frequently, doesn't give you any evidence for your claim.  That doesn't follow from showing that the occurrence is rare, that someone is gullible for believing it.... that's just bad logic,  as shown by the equivocation.

[Amarok]

Steves novel of nonsense tail ended by Roads fail

[SteveII]

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.

What "story book" are you referring to? If you mean the NT, then you just proved that you have no clue what you are rambling on about. 

Supernatural stories have no basis in reality.

That's hardcore question begging (a fallacy by the way) in just 7 words--you are efficient!

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

You started this thread. Did you do that just to hear how smart you are? See some of your deep thoughts up there on the internet?

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

Well, Luke did write Luke and Acts--so there is a glaring mistake in you simplistic argument. 

We aren't certain who the editors of the other three gospels were. Tell me, do you think the originals were just left on someone's doorstep and the first century church--which was already going for a few decades said: "hey, look what I found! Cool story--let's name if Mark!". 

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

I'm certain that this discussion is quickly moving beyond your abilities to keep up your end of it. But, we'll see. Got any more question-begging assertions and mischaracterizations I can correct for you?

[Amarok]

And the novel goes on and on 

[Angrboda]

I once had someone in a discussion propose to me that the mere ability to conceive of something increases the probability that it is true or that it exists. He gave as reference someone named Sobel, but I've since forgotten to which Sobel he had referred. I chose to accept his proposition for the sake of argument. There seems to be a similar question afoot here, as well. While one may judge the relative probabilities of the various elements of Steve's inductive argument, by accepting that they have a probability, you are implicitly granting that the probability is non-zero, i.e. that the events in question are not impossible. Any such thing which has a non-zero probability thus becomes valid evidence in an inductive argument, no matter how weak it is. If that is all that one means when one says that there is a valid inductive case for the existence of God, then, perhaps, but that seems little more than accepting the idea that God existing is a coherent proposition. It seems that this acceptance is doing most of the work here (though I have no doubt that Steve thinks other facts are doing more work here than that). So I guess I'm nonplussed about any such inductive arguments unless they can be shown to be doing more work than that. That is where I suspect the crux of the matter lies. I'm not going to argue the matter, but I think that Hume's objection that any explanation is more likely than a miracle cuts some ice here. If that is true, then accepting arguments such as Steve's as inductive arguments for the proposition of God amounts to accepting that certain things that are less probable than other things are actually more probable than the things they are less probable than, and that would simply be irrational. So, to Steve's argument, I would suggest that for the inductive case to have any merit, we must first assume that the concept of God is coherent, which not all of us do (and if it isn't coherent, believing it is necessarily irrational), and that Hume was wrong. I don't think it's up to the atheist to prove that Hume was right by providing the explicit alternative explanation to the satisfaction of the theist, that is just a sucker bet. Given that the argument, even if inductive, is a positive claim, it must refute all defeaters, not simply assert an argument of ignorance with respect to those defeaters, as it seems to be here.

[SteveII]

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.

Well, Peter, James and John did write NT books. So, there goes that point. 

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.

No, we do not know that Paul's interpretation was different. That is a red herring repeated by people who don't know what they are talking about. The entire NT was written over a period of 50 years, at least nine authors wrote 27 books containing no less than 55 major doctrines and 180 doctrinal concepts centered on one figure – Jesus Christ. There is no internal conflict in the NT. 

We have Acts, written independently by Luke. There is no question the churches existed. They are written about all through later first and second century manuscripts. The early church MOST DEFINITELY believed in the literal resurrection. It was spelled out in the second paragraph of the earliest written epistle--1 Thessalonians. 

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.

I think you imagine there were first century documents that told different stories. There weren't. You scenario of what was what in the first century is way off and your counter argument lacks any evidence. 

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.

You don't have "counter evidence". You allude to it but it does not exist.

[Minimalist]

P1. Miraculous effects have been specifically attributed to God (a supernatural being). Example, the paralytic healed by Jesus:

Miraculous effects were specifically attributed to Emperor Vespasian by the known historians Tacitus and Suetonius which is several steps above your anonymous gospel horseshit, Stevie.  Something tells me that you reject those "miracles."

Bullshitters like you always will.

[GrandizerII]

P1. Miraculous effects have been specifically attributed to God (a supernatural being). Example, the paralytic healed by Jesus: "Mark 2:10...but I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all...". There are a hundred such examples in the NT where supernatural causation was declared or unmistakably inferred from the context.

This is such horrible reasoning, and you know it, Steve. Claims made in a book don't indicate truth just because they're in a book you happen to hold sacred. You have to consider the theological biases the authors may have held in writing these books. You can't just argue it's in the book, therefore supernatural God. That's ridiculous.

P2. The resurrected Jesus was seen by as many as 500 people. Recently crucified people do not walk around and declare that they have conquered death and provided a way for man's redemption and as such, this is an obvious, rather big, supernatural claim.

Claim, exactly. One that fits a theological agenda and isn't corroborated by external non-Christian sources. Even the earlier copies of Mark didn't say that the risen Jesus was witnessed by anyone! Furthermore, the 500 figure is only found in one of the books of the Bible. Paul could've just made the number up, knowing that no one who had already believed was going to challenge him on this. Note he never mentions any of their names, so how are you going to question any of them if you don't know who to go to to ask?

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

Well, this is news. What "other sources" would those be exactly, pray tell?

b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry (every other NT writer)

Suppose this were true, the odds are low that we have works written by the Peter and John you speak of, so we most probably don't have first-hand testimonies of what they witnessed during Jesus' three-year ministry. As for James, read his Epistle, and tell me if there's anything in there that lends credence to the account of the resurrection. Hint: you wont find any because no mention is made of the resurrection of Jesus!

c. They presided over the early church (Paul, Acts, first/second century docs)
d. This early church instructed Paul (Paul, Acts)

Big deal. This doesn't lend much support whatsoever to the supernatural. Also, the authenticity of Acts is severely questioned by critical scholars.

e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written). We can infer from this the source of these beliefs were a critical mass of people who believed these events really happened which actually prompted immediate and significant action on their part--to evangelize the Roman world.

What claims exactly? You need to be more specific and detailed on what you're referring to here if your intention is not to mislead. I mean, the eyewitness testimonies of Jesus weren't mentioned in the earlier copies of Mark, and neither the virgin birth nor Bethlehem being the birthplace of Jesus were ever mentioned in any of the authentic Pauline Epistles. In addition, belief that the claims were true does not indicate that the claims were actually true. And all it takes is the belief itself to motivate believers to evangelize to people.

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

Uh, no. Read my response to your point b.

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

Very questionable that this is true.

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)

Even if true, doesn't mean they must've known each other in person.

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

Not necessarily.

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.

Too vague. What claims exactly? And are you implying they didn't disagree at all from the start regarding any aspect of the gospels?

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

lol ... what? No, there are clear differences between the teachings of Paul and the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels. And what the hell do you mean by the last part of that statement?

l. Alternate theories of the NT and early church provenance lack explanatory power of the evidence on all sorts of levels

Oh, really? Are you sure you've gone through the whole list of alternatives here? Or did you just cherry pick one or two to consider, and then conveniently declare you pet theory to be the winner?

Given the fallacies and scant information in your points, I have to say your theory doesn't quite measure up, and it fails to explain why (for example) the early copies of Mark didn't mention anything about the risen Jesus being witnessed, or why the virgin birth of Jesus and his birthplace in Bethlehem weren't brought up anywhere except in the nativity accounts in both Matthew and Luke, these accounts clearly contradicting each other in so many ways.

P3. The main promise of the NT is a series of specific supernatural effects on a person

Means jack shit.

P4. An untold number of people have reported such effects

Who? The unnamed, and therefore the unquestioned? You need to provide clear examples here to support your point because this isn't a mundane claim.

P5. An untold number of people have reported minor miracles (defined as person-oriented miracles for which the goal is very narrow -- as opposed to the NT miracles which had broad application and goals). Ranges from healing, bringing about events/experiences/encounters/open doors, extraordinary strength/peace/perseverance, evangelistic success, etc.

Examples? Because we can provide satisfactory naturalistic science-based explanations for a lot of these incidents. The placebo effect being a prime example.

P6. The question why anything at all exists has no naturalistic explanation (and most likely none forthcoming).

Says who? Also, have you also ever asked yourself why your pet god exists? Or do you only ask that of entities for which you haven't set yourself to commit special pleading in favor of?

P7. The question of why the universe exists has no metaphysically sound naturalistic explanation. There is no reason to think one will be forthcoming.

I.E., code phrase for "I don't want to accept any naturalistic explanations for why anything exists".

Here's an alternative theory for you: The universe exists necessarily. It requires no external explanation. Hence, no need for your pet god.

P8. The question of why our universe has the narrow range of physical constants which seem necessary to form matter and conserve energy but under naturalism has no other explanation than fantastically amazing chance that would not be accepted in any other case.

Here's one possible answer: modal realism. Everything that's possible is actual.

Are you really going to pretend now that you haven't encountered the various counter arguments before on this very forum?

P9. The question of why our minds seem non-physical but have causal powers over the physical undercuts hard naturalism and seems to have parallels to the concept of the supernatural (not that they are necessarily supernatural).

Yet, the neurological science points to the mind/consciousness being a function of the physical brain, regardless of whatever mysteries surrounding it. Via Bayesian reasoning, we can conclude that at this stage, given our current level and and body of knowledge, that naturalism is more likely given this fact than supernaturalism.

P10. The question of why there seems to exist a knowledge of basic morality in most people and most people believe it to be based on an objective set of principles (moral Platonism) not derived from any evolutionary process.

From Wikipedia (Morality):
The development of modern morality is a process closely tied to sociocultural evolution. Some evolutionary biologists, particularly sociobiologists, believe that morality is a product of evolutionary forces acting at an individual level and also at the group level through group selection (although to what degree this actually occurs is a controversial topic in evolutionary theory). Some sociobiologists contend that the set of behaviors that constitute morality evolved largely because they provided possible survival or reproductive benefits (i.e. increased evolutionary success). Humans consequently evolved "pro-social" emotions, such as feelings of empathy or guilt, in response to these moral behaviors.

Also, have you polled these "most people"? Or just making shit up as usual?

P11. There is physical evidence for the supernatural (from P1, P2)

Really? Where? I didn't note any physical evidence for the supernatural in P1 or P2.

P12. There is a persistent, growing, unbroken chain of personal reports of the supernatural (from P4, P5)

And you can find some explanations for all that in such fields as social psychology and psychopathology.

P13. There are reason to think that naturalism is an insufficient worldview and the existence of the supernatural has better explanatory powers in a variety of these gaps. (from P6, P7, P8, P9, P10)

If so, you haven't done a good job at showing us that naturalism is an insufficient worldview. And ad hoc God explanations suffer heaps of problems that naturalism does not suffer.