Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[GrandizerII]

[Abaddon_ire]

I know lots of atheists think that I should be loosing badly.

1
Wrong. We don't think that at all. We know it, because we can see it happening in front of us.

But that usually comes from 1) bad logic (usually question begging) and 2) not actually understanding what the NT is.

The NT is the ravings of religious loons with no supporting evidence anywhere. As corroborating external evidence, you cited Josephus which was a forgery (probably by Eusebius) and Tacitus, who basically pointed and laughed at the gullible jews.

You picked Scientific evidence as a standard

Yup. Have you a different standard to offer?

and you said "and any scientific evidence that the events could actually happen as stated". That is question begging. You are assuming they could not have happened so the documents relating such events must be wrong.

Ah, you do not understand the null hypothesis. Well, you are flat out wrong. Nobody assumes they could not happen, you are being asked to demonstrate that they did happen. That you are unable to do so is telling.

The correct standard for the 27 NT documents and what we know about the churches is Historical (as you also identified). However, beyond a reasonable doubt is not the standard historians use for believing a historical event happened.  To insist that be my standard is called special pleading (your second logical misstep). 

Wrong. It is special pleading from top to bottom and side to side.

Who wrote the gospels? Do you know?

Give me an example of "Evaluation of texts should be done in the same way as any other texts from the time period and society. Any extraordinary claims made should be treated the same as similar claims made by other authors." in the ancient world and I will describe the 100 ways in which that example is different than the 27 NT documents.

Epic of Gilgamesh from which the Noachian crap was plagiarised. Sargon from which jebus was plagiarised.

100 ways for each please.

[polymath257]

No, they are not. They are uniformly linear processors, based on a Von Neumann technology, which is quite different than the architecture of the brain.

You can emulate any architecture on regular supercomputer.

theoretically, but in practice not so much. The brain is complex enough that modeling it in sufficient detail can't yet be accomplished.

If we can correlate brain states to reported conscious states, that is more than sufficient to establish that consciousness derives from brain states.

P-zombie would report you same states.

precisely why I don't consider them to be possible. If they report an internal state in a way that is consistent with the physical evidence, then they *are* conscious.

[Amarok]

[Dmitry1983]

[Amarok]

[/url]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

For example, if a philosophical zombie was poked with a sharp object it would not feel any pain sensation, yet could behave exactly as if it does feel pain (it may say "ouch", recoil from the stimulus, and say that it is feeling pain).

Again afraid not 

[Abaddon_ire]

Prove what scientifically ? that a hypothetical  being does not exist , you realise what hypothetical means.. right ?

You assume that all human beings are conscious(despite being able to observe only your own consciousness) and then make claim that unconscious p-zombies are impossible. This is illogical

Do you look both ways when crossing the street? Yes or no?

[possibletarian]

[polymath257]

[SteveII]