Why is it more probable that your god exists than man made him up?
We have an exceptionally high prior probability that your god is false given that we both believe that every other god claimed to be true (before and after) is false. Thus, on prior probability, the JC God is HIGHLY unlikely to exist. How does the Christian overcome this? They haave to provide high CONSEQUENT probability. ie Evidence. But this is poor. Let’s take the four Gospels, written by unknown people at unknown dates in unknown places with ex post facto agendas to evangelise, at least 40 years after the person they are writing about and whom they have never met, has died.
Let us analogise. I really get into David Koresh. I dig him. I come to believe NOW (actually, in another 20 years plus, to be accurate), whilst in another country, that David Koresh was the living Messiah. But, remember, I have no telephone or internet, car or public transport, to research this etc. Now, after being converted, coming to already claim that this guy is the Messiah, I THEN write a ‘history’ or account of this guy and his Messiahship. Remember, I have never met him, and there is no way of knowing (and it is unlikely, given my geography) whether I have met any of his disciples. I call myself an evangelist, one whose job it is to convince other people using persuasive techniques, of the Messiahship of Koresh.Would you think this is a reliable account of David Koresh? Should MY account be trusted?
Not on your nelly, sunshine!
Taking just one little portion of the accounts: Matthew 27. Dead and resurrected Saints appear, parading around Jerusalem for many to see. Except no one else in the world apart from Matthew, writing in the context stated above, makes note of this. No Jew ever mentions what would have been, for them, the greatest thing ever seen.
Or take the idea that the nativity accounts (a point I bring up in my nativity book available from the sidebar) stake claims on the ‘facts’ of Jesus’ birth. They are pretty much the only cross-referencable claims in the NT. Matthew and Luke fail on every claim. They are empirically wrong. So given the basis that the first claims in two of the Gospels are empirically false, and these are the only ones which are verifiable, on what basis do we have the right to believe the rest of the Gospel claims, which are not verifiable? Wedding at Cana? Who was there? How do we know? etc. These are miracle claims which happen in rather unverifiable, nebulous contexts. And yet people are happy to drop the Nativity when it gets into difficulty and believe these nebulous claims?
Of the Gospel accounts, we should be thoroughly skeptical.