• "Historical Evidence" - What historical writing can count as "evidence" of claims to the supernatural or miraculous? Again, these are just claims of hear-say, and claims (written down or otherwise) are not evidence that a deity exists. They are evidence that someone believed stuff and made claims. Anyone can make claims by writing things down. That doesn't magically turn their claims into evidence - especially since we know that humans create religions and make up fictional and fantastical stories for various reasons.
That's true of almost all history. Do you similarly disbelieve all other histories that you don't have concrete evidence for? Using this reasoning I can say Christopher Colombus never existed. Using this reasoning all sorts of historical claims should be simply dismissed.
Once again, you are drawing a false analogy - attempting to compare claims to the supernatural/miraculous and claims which are NOT. NO textual accounts are sufficient to establish that a miracle or violation of the laws of known physics occurred, period. I don't care if hundreds of people make claims. That isn't even ordinary evidence, let alone extraordinary. Get real. You are arbitrarily (and hypocritically) attempting to lower the bar so as only to let your assumed theology through the door. Historical documents talking about the miraculous are evidence that people made claims about the miraculous. We have lots of demonstrable evidence today of people living and doing things, building stuff, and inventing. We DO NOT have any demonstrable evidence today to backup supernatural claims. What we have today are arguments from ignorance saying, "I can't possibly understand how X thing could have happened without it being God. So it must have been God."
That is not "evidence of Jehovah". It is more claims with spin and it is irrational (argument from ignorance/incredulity).
• "Prophetic Evidence" - And again you have the same problem. This is the, "because I say so" fallacy (ad hoc). Merely claiming that some alleged person of history (far removed) was a "prophet" (or that "a prophesy was fulfilled) is not evidence. It is a CLAIM. You will need actual evidence to backup that claim. Need you be reminded that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? Mere claims are not evidence. In this case you are claiming that prophesy was fulfilled (Jews disagreeing with you) and you have not demonstrated that 1) any claim was a "prophesy" or 2) that such a prophesy was "fulfilled by Yahweh". Vague utterance which can be re-interpreted to suit confirmation bias after the fact are not evidences of fulfilled prophesy. They are evidences that someone made claims.
Here is one everyone is seeing fulfilled and there is nothing vague about it. "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony unto all the nations; and then shall the end come." (Mt 24:14)
If I order a hamburger and the waiter brings it to me, is that a prophesy? 1. The "gospel" is not known in the whole world by all nations. So the claim is false. But even if your beliefs were preached in all the world all this would prove is a self-fulfilling claim - not a prophesy. If I say, "I'm going to start a business and make a million dollars!",
and then I make the million dollars, am I now a true prophet? You are being selectively gullible, with confirmation bias. People making predictions and calling them prophesies
doesn't make them prophesies. "I prophesy there will be more wars!"
Are you going to believe I'm from god if another couple wars happen? In order to have a prophesy you need a clear (not vague) foretelling of the future which CANNOT be interpreted as any other time or in any other way. It must be of only one specific moment in time and must be falsifiable. With the bible you do not have this, you have vague utterances that can (and have been) re-interpreted by every other religious sect to mean what they want it to mean
. That is nowhere near actual fulfilled prophesy.
So too, you have false "prophesy" in the bible. Jesus stated (allegedly) that he would return during the lifetime of his disciples (Matt 16) and this did not happen. So, fail. Now of course you can attempt to spin, twist, rationalize or REINTERPRET
the passage (in confirmation bias) so as to attempt to save your theology from refutation but all that proves is that this is not "prophetic evidence". It is a CLAIM which has not been backed up with evidence.
• "Answered Prayer" IS A CLAIM!!! You need actual evidence to demonstrate the cause of a given phenomena. Did you not know that correlation does not equal causation? Anybody can SAY their prayer was "answered" but their saying so doesn't make it so. This is, again, the "because I say so" fallacy (begging the question). So too, counting the "hits" and ignoring the misses is called confirmation bias. So merely claiming that someone was "healed by Jesus" and then ignoring the counter evidence when someone dies is irrational and dishonest. Still, the claim is not evidence.
I'm afraid not. To you it's a claim. To me it's fact. Because you've not had answered prayers does not mean noone has had answered prayer.
Look what you just did. YOU MADE ANOTHER CLAIM. Your mere claim that you had answered prayer is not evidence. It is a claim (just as I have been noting the whole time). Notice too how you just attempted to shift the scope of what evidence means. Evidence is demonstrable to others. Your personal self diagnosis of "answered prayer" is not evidence. We are talking about demonstrable evidence here. Please stay on topic.
• "Personal Testimonies" are (once again) CLAIMS. You need actual evidence to demonstrate that these claims (like "Jesus healed me") are factual. But you don't have that. You just have, "Because I believe it and I say so..." Again, anyone can make claims. You need sound evidence to backup those claims.
Why do I need to show anyone evidence at all? I don't. I only need to be convinced myself. If I don't reproduce results for your observation and testing that doesn't change the facts.
Then, by your own admission, a testimony is not an evidence - b/c "It's evidence for me"
is not evidence. It is a mere CLAIM to having evidence. Evidences are demonstrable to others - just like you would require demonstrable evidence
of evolution etc. So now you are just practicing intellectual dishonesty because you know damn well what is being talked about when we discuss evidence. Claims and personal conjecture are not evidence. So you do not
have the "evidence" which at first you claimed. You have personal claims and opinion. But the investigation of evidences, so as to discover the truth or falsity of claims, is not about mere opinion. It is about independent verification and the clear ability to falsify. Remember just a second ago when you were trying to show demonstrable evidence of fulfilled "prophesy"? You keep trying to apply a double standard and it will continue to be pointed out. "Personal testimonies" are not evidence of "Jehovah". They are claims which need to be backed up with demonstrable evidence (just like you would require of common descent, the age of the earth, or abiogenesis).
• "The Perfect Moral Quality of Christians" is yet another CLAIM. So you've basically made claim after claim after claim after claim, and then attempted to ASSERT that your claims are evidence. They are not. Claims are not evidence and if you actually care whether or not your beliefs are true you will begin by understanding and applying the difference. In this instance, anyone can merely CLAIM that "Christians are morally perfect" and then (when given a counter example) say that person was not a "true Christian", or use some other spin/rationalization tactic. But that just shows how much this claim is NOT "evidence of Jehovah". It is, instead, a step toward confirmation bias. Also, it is irrational because it commits the No True Scotsman fallacy. If "true Christians" can and do "sin" then they are not morally perfect. The bible itself is not morally perfect, since your own alleged Yahweh violates it's own rules throughout (slavery, genocide, infanticide, human sacrifice, rape, etc). So on two accounts this claim fails as "evidence of Jehovah".
I didn't say Christians were morally perfect. I said the Bible teaches perfect morality. Every moral principle in the Bible given for Christians is infallible. If they are applied they will bring benefits. If you don't believe that then find one biblical principle that is not infallible. If they are infallible then they are evidence of divine authorship.
The first problem you have here is that you are using the word "infallible" in a manner which I reject. Your use of this word implies that no matter what
(regardless of what you are shown) you WILL NOT be convinced of error. That is called closed-mindedness
and it is the very root of arrogance, hubris, and confirmation bias. It displays that you have started with your conclusion
and are now working backwards. But that method is unreliable for separating fact from fiction. It is the opposite of honest investigation. The bible depicts an alleged "God" that violates it's own rules; committing genocide, stoning unruly children, killing homosexuals, ripping babies from the womb, threatening eternal torture (as a loving father would do to his kid, right!), and tons of other hypocritical, heinous, and immoral acts. But you simply won't allow yourself to see the hypocrisy of your own book, will you? You will just spin and rationalize away the passages because you have started with your conclusion that the bible (and your personal interpretation of it) are "infallible".
So your very starting point (that of extreme arrogance and hubris) is the problem. You began
by assuming your theology is "infallible", when in fact you would not be OK with scientists doing this with evolution or abiogenesis. Your own personal hypocrisy and intellectual double standard is what needs to change.
The bible is NOT morally perfect. It is filled with your alleged Yahweh commanding and/or endorsing acts which are (by it's own standard - let alone any other standard) immoral. In the NT, Jesus himself has no objection to OT commands, and in fact endorses them saying they will not pass away until "all be fulfilled". Slavery is OK then? Genocide? Read Psalm 137:9. Your alleged Jehovah is not loving. Of course, I don't buy that any of these writings were from a "God". They were clearly from men, but you do buy them. In Ephesians 6 (and lots of other passages) Paul (at "the inspiration of the holy spirit") condones slavery and never speaks against it (just like the OT). The owning of another human being as property is immoral. And therefore, your bible is NOT morally "perfect". You have merely assumed
that it is perfect because that is what someone sold you early on (just like the way Muslims assume their religion prior to critical investigation).
This stuff you are claiming is not even ordinary evidence (as you would require of a salesman at your door selling cheap credit cards or making extraordinary claims about magic potions and then asking for your money). So it's really disingenuous of you to merely assert these things as evidence when you yourself wouldn't accept such tactics if a salesman, or someone else from another religion, attempted to use these types of arguments on you. Anyone can SPIN and rationalize their way into the continuance of believing nonsense. Every religion does that. It's irrational when Muslims do it, when New Agers do it, and it's irrational when you do
I am not here to convince you. I pointed out that one cannot say for a fact there is no evidence for God. That is my argument. I offered the above to just not be obstinate. My actual argument here is that it's not a fact that there is no evidence for God and noone has proved it is a fact.
So...you are you just here to preach then?
I have no idea what you are talking about here when you attempt to use the word "fact". It is as if you are attempting to argue that we need to prove a universal negative to you - when that is just a red-herring fallacy. Also, you are committing another fallacy here called Shifting the Burden of Proof. You are the one making the claims. So the burden of proof lies upon you to demonstrate those claims - just like if you came to my door with one of your buddies. We do not accept all claims until someone proves them false. The opposite is true. We should disbelieve claims until sufficient evidence warrants beliefs. But you don't have such evidence. You have claims. http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm