What evidence do you have to offer?

[Zzyzx]

.
From another thread:

.

There are some gods that theists would be justified in believing in if they existed. They would leave evidence. But that evidence is lacking.

What evidence exactly?

ANY evidence more substantial than unverified testimonials, unverified claims, unverified stories, unverified opinions and conjecture. What do you (generic term) have to offer?

Question for debate: What evidence of "gods" can be offered that is more substantial than unverified testimonials, unverified claims, unverified stories, unverified opinions and conjecture?

[Korah]

Again, you are inferring that these source documents of eyewitnesses exist, correct?

ExistED, Ken. You seem to have misread my Post #29. I'm not talking about post-War finds in Nag Hammadi or Qumran likes the Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, or certainly not the Gospel of Nicodemus you yourself mentioned. None are extant, nor did I ever say so. My finding are based on Higher Criticism.

Similarly you basically ignore what I said in my Post #25. Academia can be decades late even in publishing valuable stuff and may never accept what's best.

I have stated that my work mainly piggy-backs on Howard M. Teeple's 1974 The Literary Origin of the Gospel of John. I have never found any refutations of it (except by reviewers like Robert Kysar and Dwight Moody Smith, both of whom later changed theirs minds). I have stated that such a refutation would refute me as well. No one has found any. It would seem, at least, that whether or not I can be refuted, that no one has refuted the underlying work by Teeple, that in four decades his good work has failed to get wide acceptance even though no one can find anything wrong with it.

It's like this, Ken. I rejected Form Criticism even in its heyday. Nevertheless, in the middle of its dominance, the greatest work on the Gospel of John was done in the 1970's. (Besides Teeple there was Nicol, Freed, Fortna, and Temple.) The mindset to utilize this research was just not there until after Form Criticism was rejected. Meanwhile the seminal work on John had been forgotten--except that I had absorbed it and used it because I was not prejudiced against it like everyone else was. I was at the right age (30's) to be stimulated by new ideas, but everyone else just tried to fit it into molds that would soon be broken.

Now, care to discuss ideas rather than just appeal to authority?

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 31 by Korah]

Existed - as in no longer exists. I do think this is very relevant to the OP.

However, let me clarify something. You clearly have studied these works much more than I have. Though I have studied some in college, and am familiar, somewhat, with what you are discussing and the methodology you mention. But I am not nearly as educated in the subject as you seem to be. So, it would be unwise of me (and downright foolish) to debate your work, findings and research.

It seems though, we may be off topic. I believe you took exception to my assertion that the Gospels were not evidence of god or that miracles occurred. Correct?

To tie this all together, we disagree on whether texts that you argue at one time existed (but no longer do) should be considered evidence as proof of god/miracles.

Are we in agreement here?

[Korah]

You clearly have studied these works much more than I have. ...But I am not nearly as educated in the subject as you seem to be. So, it would be unwise of me (and downright foolish) to debate your work, findings and research.
....Are we in agreement here?

Yes, of course. (Did I omit more than I should have? I had not really seen you as agreeing with anything I said.)

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 33 by Korah]

You clearly have studied these works much more than I have. ...But I am not nearly as educated in the subject as you seem to be. So, it would be unwise of me (and downright foolish) to debate your work, findings and research. ... To tie this all together, we disagree on whether texts that you argue at one time existed (but no longer do) should be considered evidence as proof of god/miracles.
....Are we in agreement here?
Yes, of course. (Did I omit more than I should have? I had not really seen you as agreeing with anything I said.)
No, you didn't omit anything, and yes, you (still) don't see me agreeing with you, lol. I was just trying to simplify the disagreement.

Ok, given the above, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I do not consider the above argument to be compelling evidence.

-All the best,