Harvard atheist has vision, converts to Catholicism

[anynameyouwish]

Another thread of intolerant bigots. That seems to be the way this board is anymore. No discussion, no exchanging ideas. Just bigotry, intolerance and hate.

"Another thread of intolerant bigots. That seems to be the way this board is anymore. No discussion, no exchanging ideas. Just bigotry, intolerance and hate"

yup

conservatives are incapable of civilized debate

they never discuss issues

all they do is attack, mock, ridicule, insult, denigrate.....

they are BIGOTS, INTOLERANT and full of HATE


you are so right Papag......

 

[Papageorgio]

Another thread of intolerant bigots. That seems to be the way this board is anymore. No discussion, no exchanging ideas. Just bigotry, intolerance and hate.

"Another thread of intolerant bigots. That seems to be the way this board is anymore. No discussion, no exchanging ideas. Just bigotry, intolerance and hate"

yup

conservatives are incapable of civilized debate

they never discuss issues

all they do is attack, mock, ridicule, insult, denigrate.....

they are BIGOTS, INTOLERANT and full of HATE


you are so right Papag......

Your reading comprehension is way off today. This is not a left or right, it is an atheist and Christian issue and for the record, I find those on both sides of this thread to be bigoted and intolerant.

 

[ding]

How do 24,000 written manuscripts say otherwise?

It’s proof. It’s evidence. Lots of proof and lots of evidence.

Prove 24,000 written manuscripts are forgeries.

Demonstrate that a single one one of them demonstrate proof of the god you're claiming it does. No need for 24,000 at once. Let's just take them one at a time. By your leave...

That’s easy. Read the NT. It’s full of proof that Jesus is God.

Lol! No. It isn't. That's like telling some one to read Harry Potter, or Lord of the Rings... If there are any specific offered in this book you'd like to offer; I'd be more than willing to look at the claims made... Start with proving that the "Jesus" portrayed in the Bible even existed. That would be a good start. Though a long, long way from proving any man was ever more than just that. A man.

24,000 written manuscripts prove he did and tell his account. That’s where we get it from.

No. They dont. One could likely conjure up as many documents, and “accounts” touting the existence of Bigfoot, and aliens. But I'll play along; since your so convinced of the veracity of these documents. Let's examine them. One by one...
Which is the first one you'd like to offer as evidence that god exists?

There are 24,000 documents. There is no comparison in antiquity. You are without excuse.

 

[anynameyouwish]

.
how's that ...

your lame response only reinforces your beliefs are nothing more than substance for a book worm. same as the foolish conversion made by another relying on the pretext of a forged document. your claimed evidence, creation has nothing to do with christianity.

How do 24,000 written manuscripts say otherwise?

It’s proof. It’s evidence. Lots of proof and lots of evidence.

Prove 24,000 written manuscripts are forgeries.

Demonstrate that a single one one of them demonstrate proof of the god you're claiming it does. No need for 24,000 at once. Let's just take them one at a time. By your leave...

That’s easy. Read the NT. It’s full of proof that Jesus is God.

Lol! No. It isn't. That's like telling some one to read Harry Potter, or Lord of the Rings... If there are any specific offered in this book you'd like to offer; I'd be more than willing to look at the claims made... Start with proving that the "Jesus" portrayed in the Bible even existed. That would be a good start. Though a long, long way from proving any man was ever more than just that. A man.

24,000 written manuscripts prove he did and tell his account. That’s where we get it from.

24 thousand documents written by DERANGED MEN don't prove god exists.

24 MILLION documents wouldn't prove it.


there is ZERO evidence of any god

 

[Vastator]

Demonstrate that a single one one of them demonstrate proof of the god you're claiming it does. No need for 24,000 at once. Let's just take them one at a time. By your leave...

That’s easy. Read the NT. It’s full of proof that Jesus is God.

Lol! No. It isn't. That's like telling some one to read Harry Potter, or Lord of the Rings... If there are any specific offered in this book you'd like to offer; I'd be more than willing to look at the claims made... Start with proving that the "Jesus" portrayed in the Bible even existed. That would be a good start. Though a long, long way from proving any man was ever more than just that. A man.

24,000 written manuscripts prove he did and tell his account. That’s where we get it from.

No. They dont. One could likely conjure up as many documents, and “accounts” touting the existence of Bigfoot, and aliens. But I'll play along; since your so convinced of the veracity of these documents. Let's examine them. One by one...
Which is the first one you'd like to offer as evidence that god exists?

There are 24,000 documents. There is no comparison in antiquity. You are without excuse.

You have yet to present a single one for scrutiny.And we both know why. Probably best to move on to a better position. Anonymous written accounts without provenance, dates, and locations; in no way prove the existence of God

 

[ding]

That’s easy. Read the NT. It’s full of proof that Jesus is God.

Lol! No. It isn't. That's like telling some one to read Harry Potter, or Lord of the Rings... If there are any specific offered in this book you'd like to offer; I'd be more than willing to look at the claims made... Start with proving that the "Jesus" portrayed in the Bible even existed. That would be a good start. Though a long, long way from proving any man was ever more than just that. A man.

24,000 written manuscripts prove he did and tell his account. That’s where we get it from.

No. They dont. One could likely conjure up as many documents, and “accounts” touting the existence of Bigfoot, and aliens. But I'll play along; since your so convinced of the veracity of these documents. Let's examine them. One by one...
Which is the first one you'd like to offer as evidence that god exists?

There are 24,000 documents. There is no comparison in antiquity. You are without excuse.

You have yet to present a single one for scrutiny.And we both know why. Probably best to move on to a better position. Anonymous written accounts without provenance, dates, and locations; in no way prove the existence of God

It’s not my job to convince you. The New Testament has far more manuscript evidence from a far earlier period than other classical works.

 

[ding]

How do 24,000 written manuscripts say otherwise?

It’s proof. It’s evidence. Lots of proof and lots of evidence.

Prove 24,000 written manuscripts are forgeries.

Demonstrate that a single one one of them demonstrate proof of the god you're claiming it does. No need for 24,000 at once. Let's just take them one at a time. By your leave...

That’s easy. Read the NT. It’s full of proof that Jesus is God.

Lol! No. It isn't. That's like telling some one to read Harry Potter, or Lord of the Rings... If there are any specific offered in this book you'd like to offer; I'd be more than willing to look at the claims made... Start with proving that the "Jesus" portrayed in the Bible even existed. That would be a good start. Though a long, long way from proving any man was ever more than just that. A man.

24,000 written manuscripts prove he did and tell his account. That’s where we get it from.

24 thousand documents written by DERANGED MEN don't prove god exists.

24 MILLION documents wouldn't prove it.


there is ZERO evidence of any god

Existence itself is proof of God.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Lol! No. It isn't. That's like telling some one to read Harry Potter, or Lord of the Rings... If there are any specific offered in this book you'd like to offer; I'd be more than willing to look at the claims made... Start with proving that the "Jesus" portrayed in the Bible even existed. That would be a good start. Though a long, long way from proving any man was ever more than just that. A man.

24,000 written manuscripts prove he did and tell his account. That’s where we get it from.

No. They dont. One could likely conjure up as many documents, and “accounts” touting the existence of Bigfoot, and aliens. But I'll play along; since your so convinced of the veracity of these documents. Let's examine them. One by one...
Which is the first one you'd like to offer as evidence that god exists?

There are 24,000 documents. There is no comparison in antiquity. You are without excuse.

You have yet to present a single one for scrutiny.And we both know why. Probably best to move on to a better position. Anonymous written accounts without provenance, dates, and locations; in no way prove the existence of God

It’s not my job to convince you. The New Testament has far more manuscript evidence from a far earlier period than other classical works.

again


manuscript evidence is NOT evidence.

you saying "there is a god" doesn't prove it

you producing a document written by your great grandfather doesn't prove it.

Your premise is illogical

you do NOT pass the logic test.

You have just lost your right to vote

 

[ding]

24,000 written manuscripts prove he did and tell his account. That’s where we get it from.

No. They dont. One could likely conjure up as many documents, and “accounts” touting the existence of Bigfoot, and aliens. But I'll play along; since your so convinced of the veracity of these documents. Let's examine them. One by one...
Which is the first one you'd like to offer as evidence that god exists?

There are 24,000 documents. There is no comparison in antiquity. You are without excuse.

You have yet to present a single one for scrutiny.And we both know why. Probably best to move on to a better position. Anonymous written accounts without provenance, dates, and locations; in no way prove the existence of God

It’s not my job to convince you. The New Testament has far more manuscript evidence from a far earlier period than other classical works.

again


manuscript evidence is NOT evidence.

you saying "there is a god" doesn't prove it

you producing a document written by your great grandfather doesn't prove it.

Your premise is illogical

you do NOT pass the logic test.

You have just lost your right to vote

Again creation itself is evidence.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.


We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.


The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.


All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

There's your evidence.

 

[ding]

#winning

 

[anynameyouwish]

#winning

you lost

bigly


didn't even finish the race!

no facts
just opinions that you PRESENT as facts (showing how truly deranged you are)

so

you lose

bigly

 

[ding]

There is no formal defined dogma of atheism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach.

 

[ding]

#winning

you lost

bigly


didn't even finish the race!

no facts
just opinions that you PRESENT as facts (showing how truly deranged you are)

so

you lose

bigly

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[ding]

#stillwinning

 

[ding]

Atheism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements.

 

[anynameyouwish]

#winning

you lost

bigly


didn't even finish the race!

no facts
just opinions that you PRESENT as facts (showing how truly deranged you are)

so

you lose

bigly

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

sorry

didn't even bother to read your last post.

it's all nonsense anyway so I won't waste my time.

I won't continue to argue with a deluded, deranged deporable.....

you lost

you have NO DATA, NO FACTS

just opinions.


you lose.

 

[ding]

#winning

you lost

bigly


didn't even finish the race!

no facts
just opinions that you PRESENT as facts (showing how truly deranged you are)

so

you lose

bigly

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

sorry

didn't even bother to read your last post.

it's all nonsense anyway so I won't waste my time.

I won't continue to argue with a deluded, deranged deporable.....

you lost

you have NO DATA, NO FACTS

just opinions.


you lose.

You are the one who has no facts.

The universe was literally created from nothing. It was willed into existence.

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

Where are your facts?

 

[ding]

#crushinghim

 

[ding]

Atheists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities.

 

[Vastator]

Lol! No. It isn't. That's like telling some one to read Harry Potter, or Lord of the Rings... If there are any specific offered in this book you'd like to offer; I'd be more than willing to look at the claims made... Start with proving that the "Jesus" portrayed in the Bible even existed. That would be a good start. Though a long, long way from proving any man was ever more than just that. A man.

24,000 written manuscripts prove he did and tell his account. That’s where we get it from.

No. They dont. One could likely conjure up as many documents, and “accounts” touting the existence of Bigfoot, and aliens. But I'll play along; since your so convinced of the veracity of these documents. Let's examine them. One by one...
Which is the first one you'd like to offer as evidence that god exists?

There are 24,000 documents. There is no comparison in antiquity. You are without excuse.

You have yet to present a single one for scrutiny.And we both know why. Probably best to move on to a better position. Anonymous written accounts without provenance, dates, and locations; in no way prove the existence of God

It’s not my job to convince you. The New Testament has far more manuscript evidence from a far earlier period than other classical works.

Then why are you wasting time in this thread? You clearly can’t prove the position you’re claiming. So basically your just full of hot air...