Where's God?

[POI]

Does he pop up in my dreams? Is he the one whom produces my goose-bumps? Is He the one giving me my "moral compass"? Is he only experienced during deep meditation? If I have enough faith, will he appear to me? But seriously. Where is he? I was a Christian for decades. I earnestly prayed for him to reach me, to no avail.

For debate: Why have I not felt his presence?

A) I never tried hard enough; lack faith
B) He does not want to reveal Himself to me (yet)
C) Evil is blocking the request(s)
D) I'm too dumb to realize he's reaching me
E) He's not really there at all <- Current conclusion

Do not answer yet. This topic has spawned from another unrelated topic. I decided to devote this large topic to itself. Below are some premises:

P1) does god exist? (dunno)
P2) does god want a relationship with all, especially the ones who seek him (apparently so)
P3) is god capable of communicating (apparently so)
P4) can god communicate his message in a way in which the recipient could no longer deny (apparently so)
P5) have I asked for this communication earnestly and repetitively (YES)
P6) does the Bible state god answers the call to all who seek him (YES)

At best, god has opted not to contact me YET. And this would be after decades of actively seeking him. Without any emotion, I'm logically left with 2 options.

A) God is not really there <- Current conclusion.
B) God is not adhering to his promise (yet).

[POI]

Historical evidence supports the persecution of early disciples of Jesus. Numerous accounts from early Christian writings and historical texts indicate that the disciples faced significant persecution for their beliefs.

Please identify the "historical" evidence for this/these claims. Further, do you believe that the more 'persecuted' a person is, the more they possess truth?

The New Testament, particularly in the books of Luke and Acts, details various instances of persecution against early Christians, including arrests and violence instigated by both Jewish and Roman authorities

Luke is not trustworthy. Got anything else?

Scholars generally agree that the early church faced persecution, particularly in the first three centuries. This persecution was not solely from Roman authorities but also stemmed from conflicts with Jewish communities

Constantine made Christianity the official religion in the 4th century, yes. Prior to this, this is why the 'Jesus-fish' was a thing. What does any of this have to do with truth though?
.

The writings of early church fathers and historians provide additional context, confirming that the apostles did not recant their faith despite facing death

All accounts come from the later "church" and the NT. Historical methodology 101 states that if a claim possesses <religious or political> bias, it is to be less trustworthy. These "sources" unfortunately possess both in spades!

[SiNcE_1985]

This is a bad argument because it relies on human-centric bias, makes unsubstantiated probability claims, and contradicts the physical reality of the vast and mostly hostile universe we actually inhabit. The concrete analogy alone addresses much of this, for which you had little to no real response to...

Um, no.

If fine-tuning wasn't an issue, then there wouldn't be any need to explain it, as naturalists (scientists) have been attempting to do.

That, followed by the fact that PE isn't unsustaintiated.... you're just unable to offer a viable response to it.

Ignoring it or being dismissive won't make it go away.

You are also guilty of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. This argument assumes the universe was built to fit humanity, whereas humanity simply evolved to fit the universe.

Um, no.

The PE cries out for explanation, and I wanna know how is it explained, on naturalism.

Second, saying humans evolved to fit the universe is question begging.

Notice you had claimed prior, that abiogenesis is not peer reviewed.

Yet now, you are insinuating it, by claiming that humans evolved (without God) to fit it...which is abiogenesis...because after all, God doesn't exist, right?

Sounds like a peerless-reviewed theory, to me.

If the universe were different, we wouldn't be here to observe it

This is basically the Anthropic Principle.

Google was your friend, huh?

, making our "discoverable" surroundings seem special when they are simply a prerequisite for our existence.

Bruh, what's up with these weak responses?

Weak sauce. Substance-less.

And what about the "wastefulness" problem? Claiming the universe was finely tuned for humans ignores the reality of cosmology. Roughly 99.999% of the universe is an endless, dark, and lethal vacuum. If the goal was to provide a comfortable, discoverable environment for humans, it is an incredibly inefficient and hostile design. Not to mention how most of our 'created' planet is also inhabitable to humans.

The same weak objection from pages ago.

I addressed this already. Moving along.

And then there's the (unverifiable probabilities) observation. Arguments about the universe's "improbability" rely on subjective guesses about fundamental physics. Because we have no other universes to compare ours to, we cannot assign mathematical odds (or a probability) to the laws of nature, making the "fine-tuning" math highly speculative.

Um, no.

The PE not a subjective guess.

It is high level mathematics, and Penrose is a mathematician.

The PE is established in cosmology and no one has come forth to challenge the equations...but they have tried to explain it away.

Just because you felt the need to try and Google your way out of it, doesn't change the fact the PE is a problem...and these lay-responses you got on Google won't save you.

And then there's also the (alternative scientific explanations). Physicists propose naturalistic explanations for this order, such as the multiverse theory. If there are countless universes with varying physical laws, our universe's life-permitting properties become a statistical inevitability rather than a purposeful design. But of course, here is where you claim that the 'multiverse theory' was brought up solely to 'counter' deism/theism.

Again; you got your Google on.

Pages ago, I had stated that the multiverse was used to explain the fine-tuning problem...and you didn't deal much with what I said then.

Now all of a sudden, you did a little research and you're coming back with this counter-objection as if you've already known about it.

Weak...sauce.

Anyways, my answer to this stands.

What demonstrates silly is to so blatantly shoot yourself in your own foot. Action(s) requires time. Your posed objection/question is nonsensical.

I never said action doesn't require time.

Clear distinctions here Venom:

a) You, and the Muslim, both believe some invisible agency is addressing prayer. I don't.

Then I shouldn't be praying for someone who doesn't believe in prayer.

LOL! Nope. You already know the outcome, because it exposes the absurdity in your belief so easily. No Venom, this is a handwaving excuse designed so that you can continue in your blank assertions. All I ask is for you to tell me:

1. my car's VIN number
2. my daughter's place of employment

And voila, you will WIN!!!!!!!!!! Otherwise, I will just keep exposing all your nonsense.

You don't believe in prayer.

Yet again, action(s) necessitate time.

Please answer the question..I'll ask again..

So, nothing of physical (matter) nature, could be the cause, correct?

Simple yes, or no.

My point here is that anyone who states they're prayers were not answered, in which the book asserts will happen, is gaslit or receives post hoc answers provided by apologetic cope.

You don't believe in prayer.

I think I might make a new thread about this claim

You just can't help yourself, can you?

Leave... Christianity....ALONE.

Christianity ain't bothering you, but you have this compulsive need to bother it.

Let it go. You don't believe in it. So, let it go.

No more threads. Let...it...GO.

Paul was not part of the resurrection tour. He claims he met with people who were direct observers. However, these folks do not corroborate Paul's claim that he met with them.

If your mother tells you she met Elvis Presley back in 1955...would you feel the need to receive a written statement from Elvis himself, to corroborate her claim, for you to accept the claim as true?

Yes, or no?

Unlike Joseph Smith and the located "magic plates"....

Instead, Paul claims to have been 'zapped' a few years later. Anyone can claim this, at any time, and then write about it.

Right. Either you believe him, or you don't.

1) explained above
2) classical description of how legends arise
3) later historian writing about what others believed - (wild tales)
4) 'golden paragraph' - aka forgery

You've been debunked, sir.

Legends take decades to develop.

The stories surround Jesus were spreading 3-5 years after his crucifixion.

I understand you wanna hold on to this false narrative, but that won't fly over here.

Moving along.

Paul’s epistles didn't begin to gain much traction and canonical credence until the late 1st to mid-2nd century. While Paul wrote his letters between roughly 50 and 65 CE, they initially circulated only as regional correspondence among specific congregations.

Regardless, the letters predate the Gospels.

The later Gospels, along with Roman rule, are what gave this particular (resurrection) story traction above other claims to resurrection(s) stories placed out into the ether.

There has always been only one resurrection narrative.

More poor rubberstamping Venom.... If I recall correctly, my initial objection was to another interlocutor, who stated we have 100's of eyewitnesses. Well, we don't. We only have hearsay. And I've already spoken to this, in that I doubt ANY (super)natural claims, whether they come from a claimed direct eyewitness account, or from hearsay.

Ok then, you shouldn't be asking anyone to pray for you...and this lifelong obsession of getting involved with things you don't believe in, is even more weird.

You keep missing my point here. You concern yourself with supernatural claims being contemporary. Well. finding magical plates also involves the supernatural. And we also have contemporary corroboration. But this matters not, because your indoctrinated belief system tells you to reject this claim as a lie while assuming your indoctrinated belief system is not. Being both contemporary and corroborated is not what drives your belief in this crazy claim. The other aforementioned factors are what drive your acceptance to this one, while rejecting the other. Hence, you are the head driver in the taxi cab.

Um, no.

I already explained why I reject Mormon claims..so you can keep mentioning Joseph Smith and golden plates until you are blue in the face.

My answer will not change.

Paul wrote close to half of what exists in the NT.

1. Paul wrote half of what exists in the NT.

2. Therefore, Paul started Christianity.

Not only is this a non sequitur, based on what it means to be a non sequitur..but it is factually, demonstrably false.

And without Paul, you also have no claims to 'contemporary attestation'.

Yeah and without my eyes, I wouldn't have vision.

So what? Weak sauce.

Like I've said, over and over and over again, we can skip all this nonsense, Just tell me my VIN number and where my daughter works, and I will be on team Jesus immediately!

You don't believe in prayer.

Let it go. Leave Christianity alone.

[POI]

If fine-tuning wasn't an issue, then there wouldn't be any need to explain it, as naturalists (scientists) have been attempting to do.

LOL! They continue to explain it as many are still misinformed. But sometimes, you can continue trying to lead the horse to water.... you know the rest.

That, followed by the fact that PE isn't unsustaintiated.... you're just unable to offer a viable response to it. Ignoring it or being dismissive won't make it go away.

Baseless arm flapping and ranting....

The PE cries out for explanation, and I wanna know how is it explained, on naturalism.

Dover trial, just for starters. Seriously. You know, the court case which will continue to haunt your dreams.

Second, saying humans evolved to fit the universe is question begging. Notice you had claimed prior, that abiogenesis is not peer reviewed. Yet now, you are insinuating it, by claiming that humans evolved (without God) to fit it...which is abiogenesis...because after all, God doesn't exist, right? Sounds like a peerless-reviewed theory, to me.

Not talking about abio..., talking about the big 'E'. Again, all you need to do is address the concrete slap analogy, for which you really haven't.

This is basically the Anthropic Principle.

Nothing burger...

Bruh, what's up with these weak responses? Weak sauce. Substance-less.

More avoidance and handwaving. Empty huffing and puffing....

The same weak objection from pages ago. I addressed this already. Moving along.

Typing 'words' does not count in a debate. You need to actually refute the observation Venom. Yet again, more huffing, more puffing. is all.

The PE not a subjective guess. It is high level mathematics, and Penrose is a mathematician. The PE is established in cosmology and no one has come forth to challenge the equations...but they have tried to explain it away. Just because you felt the need to try and Google your way out of it, doesn't change the fact the PE is a problem...and these lay-responses you got on Google won't save you.

LOL! Do you ever get tired of misrepresenting topics?

Pages ago, I had stated that the multiverse was used to explain the fine-tuning problem...and you didn't deal much with what I said then. Now all of a sudden, you did a little research and you're coming back with this counter-objection as if you've already known about it.

LOL! No Venom. My point here is that you believe this hypothesis/model was purely developed to avoid the 'G' word. This tells me you really do not understand how science works, at all. It's quite entertaining to read.

I never said action doesn't require time.

Then no action(s) exist outside of time. Thanks for playing. Please answer my prayer request now, since there is nothing else to talk about here.

Then I shouldn't be praying for someone who doesn't believe in prayer.

Please prove me wrong. Oh, that's right... If you could of, you would of.

You don't believe in prayer.

Prove me wrong.

So, nothing of physical (matter) nature, could be the cause, correct?

Incorrect. All we have is endless examples of nature producing/regenerating more nature.

You don't believe in prayer.

You can prove me wrong in seconds. But since you CAN'T, you will continue in this perpetual lameness instead.

You just can't help yourself, can you? Leave... Christianity....ALONE. Christianity ain't bothering you, but you have this compulsive need to bother it. Let it go. You don't believe in it. So, let it go. No more threads. Let...it...GO.

Hahahah! This from someone who couldn't follow the rules, got booted off, and then snuck back on, under a different name. Talk about someone who cannot let it go...

If your mother tells you she met Elvis Presley back in 1955...would you feel the need to receive a written statement from Elvis himself, to corroborate her claim, for you to accept the claim as true? Yes, or no?

It depends. Did she also claim that she was struck by a Jesus while traveling from point A to point B? Further, are the (2) claims the same level of extraordinary, really Venom? Is meeting a celebrity the same level of a claim as claiming you were struck by god?????? Seriously Venom, you can do better,..

At least Mr. Smith had actual corroboration. Sure, it's still a ridiculous claim, but it still has Paul's claim beat on 'merit'. Meaning, it actually was corroborated.

Legends take decades to develop. The stories surround Jesus were spreading 3-5 years after his crucifixion.

Wishful thinking.... Paul was spreading stories, sure. But there is nothing to verify who else actually believed at the time. And poof, we have the Gospels decades later. And these storybooks reek of legendary embellishment, as you read from earlier copies to later copies.

There has always been only one resurrection narrative.

If another resurrection story would have been canonized, as there were others before and since, and you were indoctrinated into that one, you would instead be fighting tooth-and-nail to instead 'support' that one. You are a product of your indoctrinated upbringing, and it's quite easy to argue for any unfalsifiable claim.

Ok then, you shouldn't be asking anyone to pray for you...and this lifelong obsession of getting involved with things you don't believe in, is even more weird.

Please prove me wrong. Tell me my VIN # and my daughter's place of employment and let's END this exchange right now. I'm ready to be on team-Jesus!

I already explained why I reject Mormon claims..so you can keep mentioning Joseph Smith and golden plates until you are blue in the face. My answer will not change.

Right, because you were INDOCTRINATED to believe in YOUR flavor, rather than the other flavor. That's exactly my point. Just like the Orthodox Jews are indoctrinated to simply reject the NT, you reject the Book of Mormon. My point is, that you do not believe because of anything contemporary or corroborated. No, you believe because it is engrained into you from your youth.

1. Paul wrote half of what exists in the NT.
2. Therefore, Paul started Christianity.

Not only is this a non sequitur, based on what it means to be a non sequitur..but it is factually, demonstrably false.

More poor rubberstamping. Not surprised. Without Saul, Christianity would likely have remained a localized, minor Jewish sect. By championing the inclusion of Gentiles and arguing they did not need to follow Jewish law, Paul transformed it into a universal religion. His letters also shaped the foundational theology of the church.

[Difflugia]

Fine-tuning and low entropy are the same thing.

Not even a little bit.

The fine tuning argument is that life can only exist as it does because organic chemistry works the way it does. If certain physical constants were different, hydrogen and covalent bonding wouldn't work exactly the way they do, so hydrocarbon-based life wouldn't work.

It takes extremely low entropy to be fine-tuned.

No. The constants involved have nothing to do with the amount of entropy in the universe, past, present, or future.

No, I have not read Penrose.

I might humbly suggest that as an important step.

All I know is, his equations

The number you keep referencing is just a ratio. It's not part of an equation.

validate key premises in theistic arguments.

"I don't know, therefore God."

That's all I need from him.

"And this chair. That's all I need."

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to POI in post #461]

@POI, if you don't trust the summary, you won't trust the documentation either. Why do you say that Luke is untrustworthy? What historical proof do you have to show his untrustworthiness?

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to POI in post #461]

Ancient writing of history, especially in the Bible, @POI, is different from modern history, since the gospel writers, for example, gathered together historical events according to different themes to emphasize those ideas for the sake of their different audiences.

That doesn't mean that their historical presentation is unreliable; it just fails to put those events in chronological order the way modern historians do. It doesn't mean that they did it wrong, but it's just a different way to present history.

Compare 1 and 2 Kings, which was written during Israel's exile, and 1 and 2 Chronicles, the former of which emphasizes Israel's sins that produced their exile and the latter of which emphasizes the temple because of the need to rebuild it.

[SiNcE_1985]

Not even a little bit.

The fine tuning argument is that life can only exist as it does because organic chemistry works the way it does. If certain physical constants were different, hydrogen and covalent bonding wouldn't work exactly the way they do, so hydrocarbon-based life wouldn't work.

Bruh, you are splitting hairs.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/split-hairs

You are arguing just for the sake of arguing.

Fine-tuning states that life, in this universe, can only exist under certain astronomical parameters/conditions (PC).

And that these astronomical PC cannot be explained (or actualized) based on..

1. Necessity

or..

2. Random chance.

And that these actualized PC is best explained by virtue of..

3. Intelligent Design

Got it?

No. The constants involved have nothing to do with the amount of entropy in the universe, past, present, or future.

Um, I know...and guess what?

It's even worse for your side of things. Wanna know why?

Because the values of those constants are based on initial conditions...which means that those values aren't something that were initiated over the lifetime and evolution of the universe..but rather, those values were already set in place, from the moment of the big bang!!!

Hmm. Let that sink in for a moment.

I might humbly suggest that as an important step.

I will humbly suggest you giving your life to Christ as an even more important step.

The number you keep referencing is just a ratio. It's not part of an equation.

It was the equations that got us to that ratio, though.

But I concede your point.

"I don't know, therefore God."

Um, no.

We don't invoke God based on what we don't know.

We invoke God based on what we do know.

[SiNcE_1985]

Dover trial, just for starters. Seriously. You know, the court case which will continue to haunt your dreams.

Man, I wish some Christians would have as much faith in Jesus Christ, as you have in the Dover trial.

LOL! No Venom. My point here is that you believe this hypothesis/model was purely developed to avoid the 'G' word.

It was.

This tells me you really do not understand how science works, at all. It's quite entertaining to read.

I understand how scientists, work.

Then no action(s) exist outside of time. Thanks for playing.

I agree.

I guess it's a good thing my position isn't that God acted outside of time.

Please prove me wrong. Oh, that's right... If you could of, you would of.

Prayer is for the faithful, not the faithless.

Prove me wrong.

I have a track record of doing precisely that.

Incorrect. All we have is endless examples of nature producing/regenerating more nature.

You're playing games.

You know full well that's not what I'm asking for.

No need to ask for evidence or discuss the matter, if you aren't going to take the conversation serious.

You can prove me wrong in seconds. But since you CAN'T, you will continue in this perpetual lameness instead.

Prayers are for serious inquiries.

Hahahah! This from someone who couldn't follow the rules, got booted off, and then snuck back on, under a different name. Talk about someone who cannot let it go...

Yeah, it's like Déjà vu..all over again.

It depends. Did she also claim that she was struck by a Jesus while traveling from point A to point B? Further, are the (2) claims the same level of extraordinary, really Venom? Is meeting a celebrity the same level of a claim as claiming you were struck by god?????? Seriously Venom, you can do better,..

It's either you accept hearsay testimony, or you don't.

I'm not interested in inconsistent justifications.

At least Mr. Smith had actual corroboration. Sure, it's still a ridiculous claim, but it still has Paul's claim beat on 'merit'. Meaning, it actually was corroborated.

Well, maybe you should become a Mormon apologist..since it means that much to you.

Wishful thinking.... Paul was spreading stories, sure.

He said the stories were passed down to him, bro...which means the stories were already spreading, and he was a product of the spread.

But there is nothing to verify who else actually believed at the time.

Paul said that he and others were preaching the same gospel (Gal 1:8-9).

And poof, we have the Gospels decades later. And these storybooks reek of legendary embellishment, as you read from earlier copies to later copies.

Again, Paul had Jesus dead, risen, appearing, and deified...and the earlier and later Gospels confirms Paul's earlier writing.

So, stop it.

You're just wrong here.

If another resurrection story would have been canonized, as there were others before and since, and you were indoctrinated into that one, you would instead be fighting tooth-and-nail to instead 'support' that one. You are a product of your indoctrinated upbringing, and it's quite easy to argue for any unfalsifiable claim.

Genetic Fallacy.

Please prove me wrong. Tell me my VIN # and my daughter's place of employment and let's END this exchange right now. I'm ready to be on team-Jesus!

Prove me wrong. Show me life from no life, reptile-to-bird transformation in nature....10^10^123 odds being met on one try...infinity being traversed...and a universe popping into existence from nothing.

I'm ready to be on team-Naturalist!!

Right, because you were INDOCTRINATED to believe in YOUR flavor, rather than the other flavor. That's exactly my point. Just like the Orthodox Jews are indoctrinated to simply reject the NT, you reject the Book of Mormon.

I reject naturalism, too.

My point is, that you do not believe because of anything contemporary or corroborated. No, you believe because it is engrained into you from your youth.

Genetic Fallacy.

More poor rubberstamping. Not surprised. Without Saul, Christianity would likely have remained a localized, minor Jewish sect.

Without Jesus, Christianity wouldn't exist for Paul to do anything related to the religion.

By championing the inclusion of Gentiles and arguing they did not need to follow Jewish law, Paul transformed it into a universal religion. His letters also shaped the foundational theology of the church.

That is all fine and dandy.

But you said Paul started Christianity...which is simply a false (and dumb) thing to say.

You've become intellectually dishonest as of late...I mean, if your going to be wrong, at least be honestly wrong.

No need to be both wrong and dishonest.

[Difflugia]

Bruh, you are splitting hairs.

To the contrary, you're conflating things you don't understand. The "fine-tuning" argument of the Intelligent Design movement has a particular definition that applies specifically to the formation of life. The cosmological questions presented by Penrose have nothing to do with the fine-tuning argument. They're analogous in that both are used by theists to craft god-of-the-gaps arguments, but they're otherwise not related.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/split-hairs

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/equivocation

You sometimes use "fine-tuning" to refer to a specific set of claims and arguments, but then switch to a much broader definition that includes anything cosmological.

You are arguing just for the sake of arguing.

I'm trying to explain the deep flaws in your arguments that you seem either unable to see or unwilling to acknowledge.

Fine-tuning states that life, in this universe, can only exist under certain astronomical parameters/conditions (PC).

And that these astronomical PC cannot be explained (or actualized) based on..

1. Necessity

or..

2. Random chance.

And that these actualized PC is best explained by virtue of..

3. Intelligent Design

Got it?

I certainly do. This is a very broad, simplified description of fine-tuning arguments. Actual Intelligent Design arguments based on fine-tuning narrow this a great deal.

No. The constants involved have nothing to do with the amount of entropy in the universe, past, present, or future.

Um, I know...

You do? What were you saying about arguing just to argue?

and guess what?

It's even worse for your side of things. Wanna know why?

Edge of my seat.

Because the values of those constants are based on initial conditions...which means that those values aren't something that were initiated over the lifetime and evolution of the universe..but rather, those values were already set in place, from the moment of the big bang!!!

Yes.

Hmm. Let that sink in for a moment.

Help me out.

I will humbly suggest you giving your life to Christ as an even more important step.

You were saying something about arguing just to argue?

The number you keep referencing is just a ratio. It's not part of an equation.

It was the equations that got us to that ratio, though.

What equations? What are you talking about? Penrose discusses a number of things in The Emperor's New Mind, but the number you're maniacally attached to is a ratio of high entropy universal states to low entropy states, given particular assumptions about cosmology that a number of cosmologists share.

"I don't know, therefore God."

Um, no.

We don't invoke God based on what we don't know.

We invoke God based on what we do know.

Of course. "We do know there's a gap, therefore God."

[POI]

Man, I wish some Christians would have as much faith in Jesus Christ, as you have in the Dover trial.

Faith is required where evidence and facts lack, Venom. Peer review requires or necessitates no faith, as peer review is backed by testable and repeatable evidence, ultimately leading to facts. The Dover trial deals in peer reviewed science. Hence, to mention faith, regarding this case, is a non-starter. This is why apologists, like you, will misrepresent what peer review really is.... It's nothing but yet another giant handwave.

Now, on the other hand, faith IS very much required to believe the unfounded circulating stories -- regarding a rotting corpse rising to save humanity.

It was.

This is why I created the other thread. And your further affirmation of this idea is hanging out there like a giant matzo ball.

I understand how scientists, work.

This is false, as you made a faulty syllogism regarding peer review.

That is all fine and dandy. But you said Paul started Christianity...

Paul makes a claim. Paul wrote nearly half of what exists within the later canonized collection of books - (and some of the other books are there to "support" some of what Paul claims).

I agree. I guess it's a good thing my position isn't that God acted outside of time.

Great, then god could not have 'created' time, which is a part of 'sTem'.

Prayer is for the faithful, not the faithless.

I'm asking you to pray. You are faithful. God can answer your prayer. All you have to do is tell me the answer he gave to you. Failure to perform this easy and quick task further represents the fact that you know prayer is talking to yourself.

I have a track record of doing precisely that.

Being exposed to your self-deception is both fascinating and entertaining to experience.

You're playing games. You know full well that's not what I'm asking for. No need to ask for evidence or discuss the matter, if you aren't going to take the conversation serious.

LOL! Many posts ago, you, yourself, gave a few examples of nature creating more nature, when attempting to ask for a 'cause.'

Prayers are for serious inquiries.

Excuses.

It's either you accept hearsay testimony, or you don't. I'm not interested in inconsistent justifications.

Venom, we've been over this ad nauseum. I'm consistent, you're not. I reject all claims to the (super)natural. Once the (super)natural has been demonstrated to even exist, I will then start to entertain claims involving the (super)natural. The easiest way to do this would be for you to tell me my VIN number. You see Venom, God ain't revealing himself to me, so I'll take the next best thing. Prove to me he REALLY communicates with you. I would then instantly believe you, when you say you converse with the (super)natural in prayer.

Alternatively, you accept one very WILD supernatural claim. (a resurrection), on less corroborated evidence verses another very WILD claim, (located golden plates), which was actually corroborated by others. Your prior argument here was about being both 1) contemporary and 2) corroborated. And yet, logic states that these two facts are actually not even relevant to your position. Joseph's wild claim possesses more of the two, and yet you reject it as a lie. This is just like how fundamental Jews reject NT claims as lies. They were indoctrinated to apply special pleading for their WILD set of beliefs, just like you apply special pleading for your indoctrinated WILD set of beliefs,

He said the stories were passed down to him, bro...which means the stories were already spreading, and he was a product of the spread.

LOL! If only Paul's stories were actually corroborated. Oh, that's right, they "were". Decades later, we have the anonymous Gospels.

Paul said that he and others were preaching the same gospel (Gal 1:8-9).

Oh wow, Paul claimed that too?

Again, Paul had Jesus dead, risen, appearing, and deified...and the earlier and later Gospels confirms Paul's earlier writing.

Without Paul, you would likely not be a Christian. The hope hinges upon Paul to substantiate (4) later canonized anonymous and inconsistent accounts.

Genetic Fallacy.

Incorrect rubberstamp, because you missed my point, yet again. You believe this particular resurrection story, (as opposed to other resurrection claims presented before and after), not because the 'evidence' makes this one more compelling than all the others. No, you instead believe this one because this particular resurrection claim was backed by authority, namely "Rome". And tradition is tradition, and indoctrination is indoctrination. Paul makes an unfounded claim which was later 'founded' by wildly inconsistent affirmation(s).

That is all fine and dandy. But you said Paul started Christianity...

He did, as he was the earliest writer. Paul makes a claim. And one of the claims was to greatly broaden the rule-book for anyone, not just one small 'chosen' sect of folks. The Romans later jumped on board and 'corroborated' Paul's claim(s). This is quite evident when reading 'Luke', which is supposed to be directly tied back to Paul. And wouldn't you know it, when reading 'Luke', it really seems to pose favor to the Romans.