"You said 'One might be led to propose the existence of such an entity if there appeared to be evidence that he has revealed himself.'  There are also the entities who have no interest in us, no interest in revealing themselves to us, or who have an interest in misleading us.  None of these are narrowed down by actual claims.""

You could actually make this out as an argument for theism.  Since you can not preclude one or the other, you could say that you cannot rationally deny the possibility that you have a genuine revelation, either.  If you're taking evidence out of the mix, the best you can be is agnostic.

"If you wish me to consider the Christian POV to be better supported than the FSM POV or the Great Keno Machine POV, then you have to give me reasons to think so."

Is there anything at all in the historical record to suggest that any of these other things have actuality?  What about Christianity?

"The idea that Jesus actually walked on water and rose from the dead is NOT a reasonable conclusion from secondary sources written 30+ years later by unknown authors."

Aha.  Ok, well again, let's be clear about some things.  Your statement here suggests that your mind would change if you thought that the evidence was a little better.  I do hope that the mere fact that the event was 2,000 years ago doesn't immediately disqualify it for you.  I take you as a better man than that.  But whether or not you think that this evidence is not satisfactory, surely you see that it is evidence.  It is something.  It is more than your Zeno machine and the FSM and the IPU.

"You said that you didn't want to focus on the evidence."

The logic chain does not begin with the Creator-God, as you alleged, but on the allegations that there was a man who claimed to be such and backed it up.  That was all I was saying, unless I've forgotten in all these posts.

"No.  I don't concede the claims or the miracles.  I don't see how anyone can claim to know very much of what was actually said or done."

I am not saying that you do concede the claims or the miracles.  My suggestion is that in these other arguments you are paving the way for going so far as to allow the miracles to have happened and yet still deny that it is God behind them.  That is why I didn't really want to go into the evidence at this point because it seemed like your prejudices would have prevented the implications to have weight, anyway.  Besides, did you know that there are atheists that believe that even if the miracles happened, and Jesus performed them, they would still not be rationally justified in consenting to take on the Christian POV?  Will you go on the record here affirming that if you felt that the evidence was compelling on those scores, that you would find that to be a significant reason to adopt Christianity?

"Ow.  How in the world can you verify ?  If you are willing to accept anything the God says and reject from the outset the idea that God is lying or wrong, you're not verifying anything."

See?  This would suggest that the miracles would not be sufficient verification for you.  It seems to me that my suspicion that whether the miracles happened or not, you would still just fall back on this concern about not being able to 'verify.'  Which of course, means that the evidence is actually irrelevant to you.  If that's the case, fine, but say it up front, and none of this business protesting the weakness of the historical record as you see it- as though it mattered somehow.

Eg, thousands of years of prophesies allegedly fulfilled in Christ and his deeds.  I am not aware of claims that the FSM or IPU knows the future or that there are similar confirmations.  Don't tell me that you find these verifications to be weak.  I would be content at this point if you just admitted that at least we have something in contrast to the nothing your other hypothetical entities have.

The only way that we could gain any kind of direct evidence about the nature of the Creator-sustainer (God) is this:  God himself would have to give us that evidence.  He would have to reveal it to us.

I want this to soak in.  There is no other way.  This is it.   This is why rebuttals that hinge on the desire for 'empirical' (read:  amenable to the scientific method) evidence fails.  Given the definition of the thing, we cannot go 'out' of our system to examine this entity.  If such an entity exists, the initiative belongs fully to it.

"First, I have just about zero reason to believe the resurrection happened."

Again, personal verdict on the evidence.  Don't confuse this by suggesting that those who are persuaded otherwise on the evidence are acting irrationally.  You see, you told me that you got involved in these discussions out of concern about the dangers of religion.  If people are acting rationally from the position that the evidence is worth it, you aren't in a position to decry their reasoning.

If they accept the evidence the conclusion rationally follows.  All of these other concerns about empiricism,  metaphysical naturalism, etc, are unnecessary.  What is necessary is an examination of the evidence.

"I am as agnostic about the Christian God as I am about the Great Keno Machine."

I thought you were an atheist.

"No.  They are all written down stories of revelation."

You say 'stories' as if that means they aren't true.  Not that I grant this assessment, but how is it that you manage to conclude that the FSM is equally supported with the NT?  Does the FSM have 27 docs documenting its origination?  EQUALLY?  Dude.  Have you seen even representations of its founding docs, or only assertions of their existence?

"You'd have to show me how you get from 'Jesus said and did X, Y, and Z' to 'a Creator-God exists and has the properties of immanence, transcendence, etc.'  Again, knowing the basics about the historicity of Jesus and the documentation, I don't see how you establish anything at all about what Jesus really did with any confidence."

You're still conflating it.  Let's assume that you do know with confidence that Jesus said and did X, Y, and Z.  He raised people from the dead, he walked on water, he fed five thousand people just with a few loaves and had leftovers, he predicted his death, and his resurrection, and did rise from the dead.  Assume it.  Now answer the question:  is that enough to compel you to compel you to be a Christian or not?

If not, it is plain to see that your 'concerns' about the historicity of Jesus and etc is completely irrelevant.  This wouldn't bother me if only you'd admit it.  It's this duplicitous "I think the evidence is bad but it doesn't matter anyway" attitude that's annoying.  That causes me to ask just what would convince you?  (and no, that's not a rhetorical)

And if you can't think of anything, I not only feel that your position is not credible, but I would think that it is not robust enough to even conceivably be considered a worthy challenger to Christian theism.  If your goal is to deconvert Christians, you're going to find it a hard go with that approach.

Actually, from my readings of the FSM, it is not transcendent or immanent in nature.  So, you're wrong.

And if you think an alleged letter surfacing in 2005 is of equal historical weight as the thousands of manuscripts and parchments, etc, going back to the first century, I assure you this does not establish your views as credible.   Also, its worth mentioning that we know that the FSM is satire made to demonstrate a point, and not the points you are trying to make.

"I am in as good a position as anyone."

Hardly.  Seriously, if you continue to insist that the FSM, IPU, etc, have the same historical credentials as Christianity, whatever position you are in, it is not one of competence to address the evidence.  Sorry.

"As a normal human being, the historical credentials are definitely far in favor of Jesus."

You mean, the historical credentials for Jesus existing as a normal human being are superior then the FSM/IPU?  Do I understand this right?  I hope so, because this conversation was rapidly coming to a close otherwise.  If I understand your statement right here, I am less inclined to think you're just insane.  [sntjohnny thinks about adding a smiley but decides he probably really does mean it in seriousness]

"By your understanding of Christian ?  No.  I wouldn't think of Jesus as a normal mortal human anymore."

Christians clearly don't believe he was a normal mortal human.  Fully human, yes.  But it is not normal for humans to be God incarnate.  If you didn't think of Jesus as a normal mortal I think I would be perfectly comfortable with that.  At any rate, given the assumptions of the question, if Jesus insisted that he was in fact a true human and had demonstrated it in the agreed upon assumed ways, you would refuse to take him at his word?  On what grounds?  Your extensive knowledge of every square inch of the universe?  Your extensive knowledge of how God really behaves?

"The FSM tinkers with the evidence and our perceptions to make things appear old, evolved, etc., and to keep himself generally hidden."

Right, not the same.

"The 'thousands of manuscripts and parchments' represent secondary and worse sources"

I'm not going to argue how good you think they are.  At this point you have said there is NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE.  NO would mean not even 'secondary and worse' sources.  I think you're completely wrong in your knowledge on the matter, but I'm really looking for an admission that there is at least something.  It shouldn't be such a difficult admission.

Sure.  BH is part of the historical record right now.  But you said, and I quote:

"I have no empirical reasons to consider them"

NO?  NONE?

After all, people will believe all sorts of screwy things.  Right?

"The FSM, the IPU, etc., have the same historical credentials as (Jesus as God.)"

No, they really don't.  This is a fine moment to play put up or shut up.  Let's start with just the 27 books of the NT.   I lay them down as preliminary sources.  Please post for me the original source material for the FSM or the IPU, take your pick.

I think the real truth of the matter is that you are dismissing the credentials, not because you think they are 'secondary' sources, but because you are already predisposed to dismiss the miraculous out of hand.

"We are all predisposed to dismiss the miraculous."

Are you so sure?  This would seem to go against Dawkins's claims in TGD that we are predisposed to look for them, like moths going to a flame.

I would go further and point out that a certain skeptical attitude should be employed in every sphere, not just questions of theism.  If you aren't, you're going to be taken advantage of in all sorts of ways.  In the second place, I would say that one has to look at the claim intelligently- and no one is saying you shouldn't.   

For example, this levitating monk, did he appear to just one person, this 'overly credulous observer'?  Or did he perform his feat before thousands of people?  (Jesus did.)

Did this single observer then try to charge you money?  Did this monk submit himself to the scrutiny of his doubters and enemies (like James Randi) and pass muster?  (Jesus did.)

Was this observer in a position to know if the monk was lying or not?  (The disciples were).

Knowing whether or not the monk was lying, did the observer(s) suffer for the claim?  (The disciples did).

Do people over the years or centuries who look into the matter find it compelling?

Or has it been forgotten except as a brief moment in history?

In the case of JS, I suppose that would be pretty difficult, as I'm certain we have death certificates and such.  But let's say in three hundred years such materials are hard to obtain and the Mormons shift their position (something they've been known to do) and start asserting that Smith did do such a thing.  You would still not be powerless.  You would be able to detect that this is a newer claim and that it was not made while the records actually did exist.

Jesus was killed and buried in Jerusalem, the very same place where some of the reports of him being seen were made.   All of his enemies were still alive and kicking.  Just a few weeks later the disciples began their official preaching ministries and thousands were persuaded immediately.

And his enemies were silent.  I'm not aware of any skeptic that has ever suggested that claims of Jesus' resurrection were new to the fourth century.  (Give it time and Dan Brown will write a book saying as much)

So, we are not powerless in evaluating these claims.  But if we evaluate a claim already knowing that it is false because of our philosophical preconceptions, we can't really say that we evaluated it.

Yeah, 'cos stuff like that never happens.  I can't find the good link to it, but after Mani was flayed and his corpse displayed his followers (Manicheans) still went around saying "Mani lives."

lol, thanks... I think. 

I'm a little curious about how you found that.

Actually, what I'm really curious about is how you have time for all these forums!

Did you look at one of the bulletin samples?

I better quote it here for posterity sake.  :)