What are the good reasons to doubt God's existence?

[DoKo (Dominik Kowalski)]

@SuperBigV

I think we are getting away from the OP question, but you have no evidence of resurrection. I would say the best evidence against the resurrection, is the fact that according to the Synoptic Gospels, the people considered Jesus the risen John the Baptist, even as Jesus was still alive but John the Baptist dead. The origin of the belief, the belief among Orthodox Jews, etc… all of the same Christian Apologetic arguments apply to the belief in John’s resurrection. Christianity, of course, denies John rose from the dead, but the fact that Christian documents (competing to Johanite movement) records this belief is evidence stronger than anything Christianity offers. So, you may be convinced resurrection is true, but I am not.

This has been answered several times in different threads so I´m not bothering answering it again.
Here is one:

Richard Carrier addressed in peer-review for the first time

Richard Carrier’s mythicist theories have been, for the first time, addressed in a peer-reviewed setting. Daniel Gullotta has published a paper titled On Richard Carrier’s Doubts: A Response to Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt in the most recent issue Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (Brill). I think this issue came up in the last few days. I unfortunately do not have access to this paper but might consider purchasing it.

@SuperBigV

What is the name of the fallacy, where just because one part of an argument may be false, the entire slew of arguments becomes null and void?

Fair enough, the definition was also mostly right if I see it correctly. My reaction was rather because of my normal experience with that site.

@SuperBigV

But Christians used to believe that Jesus/Yahweh was responsible for the natural phenomenon, including lighting. Why isn’t he unemployed?

The difference is that the God of the bible isn´t described as being restricted to one area. Thor was responsible for the thunder and the lightning but he didn´t have anything to do with anything else. The direct interaction between God and his people isn´t seen with the natural gods, apart from the one-road-interactions through oblations of course.

@SuperBigV

They rule out all of the natural phenomenon to explain the resurrection, but then claim that only one supernatural explanation can work.

By logic, yes of course.

@SuperBigV

For example, perhaps there was a supernatural hallucinations? Or some spirit stole Jesus’ body and convinced the disciples Jesus is not there?

I can´t rule it out and like I said I don´t rule other spirits out a priori. But since the claim doesn´t have any supporting evidence, I don´t have any reason to consider it any further.

@SuperBigV

Besides, even if resurrection happened, there is no way for us to know that it truly did.

This is how history works. Barely proofs, mostly approaches. And when even atheistic scholars like Gerd Lüdemann (german, modern day Feuerbach I might add), say that the disciples experiences with Jesus after his crucifixion has to be seen as historical, then you know there is something to the accounts in the NT. And this is the evidence you for some reason see as nonexistent.

@SuperBigV

Even Saul (who later became Paul) needed a supernatural vision to convince him of the resurrection.

Yes because Paul wasn´t there to witness the resurrection like e.g. the Apostles did. He was on the way to Damaskus. I don´t know why this requires an “even”, Thomas also wanted proof, but he had the advantage that he was there. Obviously the vision was enough for Paul to abandon his original mission.