I guess we don't exist

[Phaedrus]

Becasue a christian pseudo-historian's son said so

In order for you to make that claim, you have to have all knowledge; which, I’ve never met even an atheist who acknowledges they know everything there is to know. So, is it possible that there could be a god and you just don’t know it? Well, if they say, “No,” then they’re acknowledging they know everything there is; which, first of all is a problem.

[OakTree500]

Becasue a christian pseudo-historian's son said so

In order for you to make that claim, you have to have all knowledge; which, I’ve never met even an atheist who acknowledges they know everything there is to know. So, is it possible that there could be a god and you just don’t know it? Well, if they say, “No,” then they’re acknowledging they know everything there is; which, first of all is a problem.

I think that shows the Christian lack of understanding.


In total fairness to what he is saying here, until we find a way to 100% prove there is no god, we can't say there isn't BUT right now, considering all the evidence we have against religion as a whole and how dumb the majority of it is, we're like 99.9% of the way there. As such, we can say "no" because we also know there is no way to prove a god(s) DO exist in equal messure. 

Very much the same as saying "unicorns don't exist". I can't prove they don't, but it's more likely than not that they don't exist.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

They are the worst script-writers.

[Mathilda]

But at what point can you say that something doesn't exist? Because if you can't ever say that X does no exist does it even make sense to discuss such a possibility? The same can be applied to whether we know something to be true. At some point you have to say that we are as sure as it is possible to be. And we have easily reached that point regarding the non-existence of gods.

[Phaedrus]

To state "we cannot say for certain something doesn't exist" is merely an unreasonable apologetic trap.

The truth is that at a certain point we can state for certainty that something doesn't exist. After all, if any credible evidence ever presents itself, we can then change our minds to best fit the evidence provided.

[no one]

I don't exist. You're all just off your rockers.

[Gwaithmir]

Actually, the Christian God has a number of self-contradictory characteristics. Hence, we know that God does not exist. 

[Mathilda]

That and the fact that you can't say something that cannot be measured or sensed exists but also not be able to specify what it actually is.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You can, as the cousins prove almost hourly. They're oblivious to the effect.

[julep]

Becasue a christian pseudo-historian's son said so

In order for you to make that claim, you have to have all knowledge; which, I’ve never met even an atheist who acknowledges they know everything there is to know. So, is it possible that there could be a god and you just don’t know it? Well, if they say, “No,” then they’re acknowledging they know everything there is; which, first of all is a problem.

By that “reasoning,” there are no christians, either.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Becasue a christian pseudo-historian's son said so

In order for you to make that claim, you have to have all knowledge; which, I’ve never met even an atheist who acknowledges they know everything there is to know. So, is it possible that there could be a god and you just don’t know it? Well, if they say, “No,” then they’re acknowledging they know everything there is; which, first of all is a problem.

By that “reasoning,” there are no christians, either.

♫And I said to myself
'What a wonderful world'♫

[madog]

Tim Barton argued that atheists don’t even exist  ...

He must be mixing us up with Gods .....

[Old Man Marsh]

Dichotomies do not exist.

[Szuchow]

This is reasoning of particularly dumb chimpanzee.

[Minimalist]

But at what point can you say that something doesn't exist?

You don't have to say it.  You have to merely note that there is no evidence for its existence.  Like unicorns.  Or bridge trolls.  Or jesus.

[airportkid]

For a second there I thought you said bridge tolls  and I was about to cancel my FasTrak account when I thought it might be smart to reread that post.  Whew. 

[GenesisNemesis]

Aren't theists the ones who claim to know the absolute reason for why we exist? Isn't that the epitome of pretentiousness?

[mordant]

Becasue a christian pseudo-historian's son said so

In order for you to make that claim, you have to have all knowledge; which, I’ve never met even an atheist who acknowledges they know everything there is to know. So, is it possible that there could be a god and you just don’t know it? Well, if they say, “No,” then they’re acknowledging they know everything there is; which, first of all is a problem.

*Yawn* same old same old.

A faulty conclusion based on a total misapprehension. What else is new.

[Minimalist]

[RobbyPants]

To state "we cannot say for certain something doesn't exist" is merely an unreasonable apologetic trap.  

The truth is that at a certain point we can state for certainty that something doesn't exist. After all, if any credible evidence ever presents itself, we can then change our minds to best fit the evidence provided.

I've noticed they never jump to the defense of the literal infinity other gods which can't be proven 100% to not exist. And then they mock Pastafarianism for being wrong. How do they know???

[mordant]

I've noticed they never jump to the defense of the literal infinity other gods which can't be proven 100% to not exist. And then they mock Pastafarianism for being wrong. How do they know???

Special pleading. They know from personal subjective experience (either some sort of peak experience or just the experience of feeling the "truthiness" of the faith's value proposition). Once they "know" they are right, then obviously the others must be wrong.

Christians go on and on about how their faith is unique among all the faiths. On another forum just today a guy opined that the Christian faith is the only one that absolves you of your sins -- apparently unaware that sin is a manufactured need that was provided to him so he'd want the remedy. It's not like other faiths don't have different bullshit problems to go with their different bullshit solutions. But they can't see this.

[Free]

Becasue a christian pseudo-historian's son said so

In order for you to make that claim, you have to have all knowledge; which, I’ve never met even an atheist who acknowledges they know everything there is to know. So, is it possible that there could be a god and you just don’t know it? Well, if they say, “No,” then they’re acknowledging they know everything there is; which, first of all is a problem.

I think that shows the Christian lack of understanding.


In total fairness to what he is saying here, until we find a way to 100% prove there is no god, we can't say there isn't BUT right now, considering all the evidence we have against religion as a whole and how dumb the majority of it is, we're like 99.9% of the way there. As such, we can say "no" because we also know there is no way to prove a god(s) DO exist in equal messure. 

Very much the same as saying "unicorns don't exist". I can't prove they don't, but it's more likely than not that they don't exist.

I disagree.

The question is:

"Can we know if there is no god?'

The answer is: 

"Yes."


In the very same way that we acknowledge the "nothingness" of anything else, we can also acknowledge the "nothingness" of God. 

For example, you are sitting at a table with 6 people and you are told by one of them there is a jar of coins sitting in the middle of the table. You and the other four people can see that there is no jar of coins in the middle of the table. 

You and the others have observed "nothingness." You have observed the "evidence of absence." Therefore you can rightfully and truthfully conclude that there is no jar of coins in the middle of the table.

What this all comes down to is using the evidence of absence to prove a negative. Claiming that it is impossible to prove a negative is a pseudo-logic, because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics, including Arrow's impossibility theorem. It can all be demonstrated by using the proof of impossibility argument.

Let's set up an explanation ...

Whenever anyone says that the existence of God is a possibility they are making a positive claim that requires proof. We are not talking about them providing proof of the existence of God here, but of providing proof that the existence of God is even possible.

You see, it is at this very point where agnostics get screwed up on going full Monty with their atheism. Although they don't believe in God, the are reluctant to make the positive claim of the non-existence of God because in the back of their minds they still believe the existence of God, however remote, is possible.

But again, for something to even be possible requires some evidence- any evidence at all- to qualify it as a possibility.  The very word possible is defined at such:

1: being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization



https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/possible



2: able to be done or achieved, or able to exist



https://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction...h/possible



3. Able to be done or achieved


https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/possible

Therefore, we can safely conclude that for something to even be possible it must somehow be proven that it is capable. So is God capable of existing? Have we seen any evidence at all that qualifies us to hold onto the possibility that God can exist?

Just like the religious people have failed to demonstrate evidence for the existence of God, they have also failed to show evidence that the existence of God is even possible. And just like you dismiss the existence of God based upon the lack of evidence for God's existence, likewise you can dismiss even the possibility that God could exist.

Over the many centuries religious people have failed to demonstrate any evidence of either the existence of God, or even the possible existence of God. Many of these religious people have claimed to be some kind of authority on God, such as being a pastor, priest, etc. Yet not one of them- and there have literally been millions- has ever provided us any evidence of any kind. 

Many of them have called out to their God and said something to the effect of "Give us a sign." But nothing ever happened. They have repeated this test ad nausium to prove the existence of God, and test after test has failed.

So what should we, as atheists, honestly conclude here? After innumerable failures to provide evidence of any kind to even prove the existence of God is possible, should we as atheists still conclude that it is possible that God could exist?

I don't think so. I don't think that's an honest position to take. When there is no evidence of the existence of something, and no evidence at all that it could even possibly exist, why then should we still conclude that it is still possible?

You see, the constant failures of the religious folks to even prove the possibility of the existence of God qualifies as a successful proof of impossibility.  They have tried innumerable times over history to prove the possibility and have failed 100% of the time.

Those innumerable failures can be taken as positive proof of the non-existence of God. 

Therefore, we actually do have evidence that God does not exist. Therefore, the proper and most honest judgment is:

God does not exist.

[vulcanlogician]

He refutes theism too.

[SteveII]

Becasue a christian pseudo-historian's son said so

I think that shows the Christian lack of understanding.


In total fairness to what he is saying here, until we find a way to 100% prove there is no god, we can't say there isn't BUT right now, considering all the evidence we have against religion as a whole and how dumb the majority of it is, we're like 99.9% of the way there. As such, we can say "no" because we also know there is no way to prove a god(s) DO exist in equal messure. 

Very much the same as saying "unicorns don't exist". I can't prove they don't, but it's more likely than not that they don't exist.

I disagree.

The question is:

"Can we know if there is no god?'

The answer is: 

"Yes."


In the very same way that we acknowledge the "nothingness" of anything else, we can also acknowledge the "nothingness" of God. 

For example, you are sitting at a table with 6 people and you are told by one of them there is a jar of coins sitting in the middle of the table. You and the other four people can see that there is no jar of coins in the middle of the table. 

You and the others have observed "nothingness." You have observed the "evidence of absence." Therefore you can rightfully and truthfully conclude that there is no jar of coins in the middle of the table.

What this all comes down to is using the evidence of absence to prove a negative. Claiming that it is impossible to prove a negative is a pseudo-logic, because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics, including Arrow's impossibility theorem. It can all be demonstrated by using the proof of impossibility argument.

Let's set up an explanation ...

Whenever anyone says that the existence of God is a possibility they are making a positive claim that requires proof. We are not talking about them providing proof of the existence of God here, but of providing proof that the existence of God is even possible.

You see, it is at this very point where agnostics get screwed up on going full Monty with their atheism. Although they don't believe in God, the are reluctant to make the positive claim of the non-existence of God because in the back of their minds they still believe the existence of God, however remote, is possible.

But again, for something to even be possible requires some evidence- any evidence at all- to qualify it as a possibility.  The very word possible is defined at such:

1: being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization



https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/possible



2: able to be done or achieved, or able to exist



https://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction...h/possible



3. Able to be done or achieved


https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/possible

Therefore, we can safely conclude that for something to even be possible it must somehow be proven that it is capable. So is God capable of existing? Have we seen any evidence at all that qualifies us to hold onto the possibility that God can exist?

Just like the religious people have failed to demonstrate evidence for the existence of God, they have also failed to show evidence that the existence of God is even possible. And just like you dismiss the existence of God based upon the lack of evidence for God's existence, likewise you can dismiss even the possibility that God could exist.

Over the many centuries religious people have failed to demonstrate any evidence of either the existence of God, or even the possible existence of God. Many of these religious people have claimed to be some kind of authority on God, such as being a pastor, priest, etc. Yet not one of them- and there have literally been millions- has ever provided us any evidence of any kind. 

Many of them have called out to their God and said something to the effect of "Give us a sign." But nothing ever happened. They have repeated this test ad nausium to prove the existence of God, and test after test has failed.

So what should we, as atheists, honestly conclude here? After innumerable failures to provide evidence of any kind to even prove the existence of God is possible, should we as atheists still conclude that it is possible that God could exist?

I don't think so. I don't think that's an honest position to take. When there is no evidence of the existence of something, and no evidence at all that it could even possibly exist, why then should we still conclude that it is still possible?

You see, the constant failures of the religious folks to even prove the possibility of the existence of God qualifies as a successful proof of impossibility.  They have tried innumerable times over history to prove the possibility and have failed 100% of the time.

Those innumerable failures can be taken as positive proof of the non-existence of God. 

Therefore, we actually do have evidence that God does not exist. Therefore, the proper and most honest judgment is:

God does not exist.

Two problems with this whole thing:

1) To support this house of cards, you are equivocating--using 'possible' as we use it in simple everyday language in a philosophical argument, where there exists many different meaning of the word. So, which one are you using:

a. Subjunctive possibility
b. Epistemic possibility or
c. Deontic possibility?

And (a), has four Subjunctive types of possibilities ?

i. Logical possibility
ii. Metaphysical possibility
iii. Nomological possibility or
iv. Temporal possibility

and that does not even get into alethic modalities with fully fleshed out possible, necessary, contingent, and impossible categories.

So, I claim it is an epistemic (for all we know...) possibility (as I will lay out in 2) as well as logically and metaphysically possible (I actually would go so far as saying necessary--but we will leave it as possible for now) that God exists. To prove me wrong, you have to use the category to disprove my claim. For example, tell me what is logically or metaphysically impossible about the statement: God exists. If you can't then it is logically and metaphysically possible that he does.

2) You are simply redefining the word 'evidence' until there is none and then declaring "there is none". Let's standardize:

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

So, what is my evidence? Here's an inductive argument I have used in the past that contains a lot of it:

first a definition: Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given.

P1. Miraculous effects have been specifically attributed to God. 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 (God) 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 repeating and 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. From textual criticism, we know there were additional documents of a similar theme lost to history.
k. 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.
l. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
m. 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 God 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 existence of God.

This is important, if you can't prove ALL my evidence is wrong, the case you outlined falls apart. It does not even matter if it is true or not. Your argument fails. That means do not float some alternate theory about one or two of these points as a rebuttal. You have to prove them ALL false.

[Bucky Ball]

I think that shows the Christian lack of understanding.


In total fairness to what he is saying here, until we find a way to 100% prove there is no god, we can't say there isn't BUT right now, considering all the evidence we have against religion as a whole and how dumb the majority of it is, we're like 99.9% of the way there. As such, we can say "no" because we also know there is no way to prove a god(s) DO exist in equal messure. 

Very much the same as saying "unicorns don't exist". I can't prove they don't, but it's more likely than not that they don't exist.

I disagree.

The question is:

"Can we know if there is no god?'

The answer is: 

"Yes."


In the very same way that we acknowledge the "nothingness" of anything else, we can also acknowledge the "nothingness" of God. 

For example, you are sitting at a table with 6 people and you are told by one of them there is a jar of coins sitting in the middle of the table. You and the other four people can see that there is no jar of coins in the middle of the table. 

You and the others have observed "nothingness." You have observed the "evidence of absence." Therefore you can rightfully and truthfully conclude that there is no jar of coins in the middle of the table.

What this all comes down to is using the evidence of absence to prove a negative. Claiming that it is impossible to prove a negative is a pseudo-logic, because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics, including Arrow's impossibility theorem. It can all be demonstrated by using the proof of impossibility argument.

Let's set up an explanation ...

Whenever anyone says that the existence of God is a possibility they are making a positive claim that requires proof. We are not talking about them providing proof of the existence of God here, but of providing proof that the existence of God is even possible.

You see, it is at this very point where agnostics get screwed up on going full Monty with their atheism. Although they don't believe in God, the are reluctant to make the positive claim of the non-existence of God because in the back of their minds they still believe the existence of God, however remote, is possible.

But again, for something to even be possible requires some evidence- any evidence at all- to qualify it as a possibility.  The very word possible is defined at such:

1: being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization



https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/possible



2: able to be done or achieved, or able to exist



https://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction...h/possible



3. Able to be done or achieved


https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/possible

Therefore, we can safely conclude that for something to even be possible it must somehow be proven that it is capable. So is God capable of existing? Have we seen any evidence at all that qualifies us to hold onto the possibility that God can exist?

Just like the religious people have failed to demonstrate evidence for the existence of God, they have also failed to show evidence that the existence of God is even possible. And just like you dismiss the existence of God based upon the lack of evidence for God's existence, likewise you can dismiss even the possibility that God could exist.

Over the many centuries religious people have failed to demonstrate any evidence of either the existence of God, or even the possible existence of God. Many of these religious people have claimed to be some kind of authority on God, such as being a pastor, priest, etc. Yet not one of them- and there have literally been millions- has ever provided us any evidence of any kind. 

Many of them have called out to their God and said something to the effect of "Give us a sign." But nothing ever happened. They have repeated this test ad nausium to prove the existence of God, and test after test has failed.

So what should we, as atheists, honestly conclude here? After innumerable failures to provide evidence of any kind to even prove the existence of God is possible, should we as atheists still conclude that it is possible that God could exist?

I don't think so. I don't think that's an honest position to take. When there is no evidence of the existence of something, and no evidence at all that it could even possibly exist, why then should we still conclude that it is still possible?

You see, the constant failures of the religious folks to even prove the possibility of the existence of God qualifies as a successful proof of impossibility.  They have tried innumerable times over history to prove the possibility and have failed 100% of the time.

Those innumerable failures can be taken as positive proof of the non-existence of God. 

Therefore, we actually do have evidence that God does not exist. Therefore, the proper and most honest judgment is:

God does not exist.

Two problems with this whole thing:

1)  To support this house of cards, you are equivocating--using 'possible' as we use it in simple everyday language in a philosophical argument, where there exists many different meaning of the word. So, which one are you using:

a. Subjunctive possibility
b. Epistemic possibility or
c. Deontic possibility?

And (a), has four Subjunctive types of possibilities ?

i. Logical possibility
ii. Metaphysical possibility
iii. Nomological possibility or
iv. Temporal possibility

and that does not even get into alethic modalities with fully fleshed out possible, necessary, contingent, and impossible categories.

So, I claim it is an epistemic (for all we know...) possibility (as I will lay out in 2) as well as logically and metaphysically possible (I actually would go so far as saying necessary--but we will leave it as possible for now) that God exists. To prove me wrong, you have to use the category to disprove my claim. For example, tell me what is logically or metaphysically impossible about the statement: God exists. If you can't then it is logically and metaphysically possible that he does.  

2) You are simply redefining the word 'evidence' until there is none and then declaring "there is none". Let's standardize:

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

So, what is my evidence? Here's an inductive argument I have used in the past that contains a lot of it:

first a definition: Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given.

P1. Miraculous effects have been specifically attributed to God. 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 (God) 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 repeating and 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. From textual criticism, we know there were additional documents of a similar theme lost to history.
    k. 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.
    l. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
    m. 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 God 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 existence of God.

This is important, if you can't prove ALL my evidence is wrong, the case you outlined falls apart. It does not even matter if it is true or not. Your argument fails. That means do not float some alternate theory about one or two of these points as a rebuttal. You have to prove them ALL false.

Actually if it's an inductive argument all anyone has to do is prove some of them wrong.
It's child's-play to refute every single one of these childish assertions.

All total 100 % bullshit.
Same old shit, repeated ad nauseam. None of it with ANY validity. None at all.
No one cares about the semantic games and "definitional" side-stepping.
The words are used in their normal linguistic context. There is nothing to prove.
All the other bullshit has been PROVEN wrong here over and over.
There is no evidence 500 people saw Jesus. A made up believer story is not evidence.
If it is, then it's also the same quality "evidence" that 500 other people ALSO rose from the dead.
No one has to prove ANY of this bullshit evidence wrong. It's simply not EVEN evidence.

He has not justified induction as valid in this case. He has not stated which logic system he is using and why.
NO scholar says there is a "main premise" of the NT .. and even IF there were, it's circular. It's evidence of nothing. The "good news" is not objective and not "all the news'.

If this CRAP is evidence, then I have BETTER evidence for something else ... and Stevie FAILED to accept the challenge I once offered him to accept this BETTER evidence. HE himself does not believe in his own evidence. I proved it. He would not accept my challenge :

I present to you a series of events that occurred in what is now, one of the United States of America. 

The Governor of the state in question became involved. 
A court was established. 
Witnesses were carefully examined and cross-examined, by the best experts of the day. 
Evidence was gathered. 
Many people confessed in public to the officials of the court. 
The entire proceeding was documented with thousands of sworn affidavits, court documents, interviews and related proceedings. 
Sufficient evidence was established by intelligent men and women of good faith, that the declarations of the witnesses were true, and that these declarations should in all reasonableness result in the established legal consequences that reasonable good adult men and women thought were perfectly legitimate. 

What evidence did they have that the assertions concerning what they said they saw and were convinced of were really true ? 

1. Hundreds if not thousands of people were involved in concluding that what they said they saw and concluded was actually true. 
2. The witnesses provided sworn testimony in court, sworn affidavits which we can look at today, and affirmed they were completely utterly convinced that what they were saying was totally completely true. 
3. The witnesses came from all social strata, and every diverse background, including the most highly educated of the day. 
4. These witnesses included judges, magistrates, the governor of the state, and family members of those about whom the assertions were made. 
5. Many involved had much to lose if the assertions were to be found true. The consequences would impact many in very personal ways, if found to be true, thus had no conflict of interest, or reasin to lie. Many could lose beloved spouses and family members and friends about whom they cared a great deal. 
6. The proceedings were thorough, exhaustive investigations. They deliberately gathered evidence. They made every effort to sort out truth from fallacy. They went to every possible length to actually discern the facts. 
7. There are numerous artifacts from the time, and many documents from the proceedings we can review in person today. 
8. These proceedings happened, not 2000 years ago, but a mere few hundred years ago. The literacy rate was far far higher than in ancient Israel. 
9. For claimed events from 2000 years ago, there are no actual original documents of any kind. None at all. Only copies from centuries later. 
10. For the events in question we have sworn documented court testimony, not just word of mouth transmission. 
11. A truck full of documents from the proceedings exist at the University of Virginia Library. You can go see the testimony of the eye-witnesses for yourself, today. 
12. By any measure or method, the quantity and quality of the evidence for the events in question FAR FAR FAR outweigh the quality of the evidence for the events in Jerusalem 2000 years ago. 
13. Anyone who claims they have good evidence to support belief in Jesus, his death, and resurrection, or any miracle thought to have happened today, IF they are in any way a consistent, honest, logical and a reasonably thoughtful person, they MUST also accept :

That of the 250 people accused, 19 women in Salem Massachusetts, including Sarah Goode, and Rebekah Nurse, The Witches of Salem, really were actually witches, and were justly condemned and executed for performing demon magic.

LMAO.
So much for "evidence" of religious nonsense.
Stevie loses again.