No video recordings of miracles proves they are extremely rare in current times (eg of the order 1 in 2000 years events). Thus even if God is true, for the purpose of making predictions about the world, we would do as well assuming he is false.

The Bible documents miracles much more frequently in the old testament. The fact that the number and significance of miracles is inversely proportionate to the technology available to record them is exactly what we would expect if the Bible were untrue. However, this does not prove that miracles are false as God could have a reason for this (eg wanting people to have faith rather than be persuaded by evidence). I would imagine most atheists would think the argument in brackets was ridiculous though so happy for any theists to posit a different reason.

That's not his argument. His argument is why did God choose to do it at that period where information was so hard to verify/preserve and not again later. This is exactly the same for aliens who chose only to make contact with one small group of people in one small period of human history.

Maybe I don't understand the argument you wish to pose but I understand the topic: fact that Jesus has not appeared after technology advanced is evidence against Xtianit

And it clearly is incorrect.

Isn't the thing about aliens, bigfoot and ghosts that they don't exist either!

[By aliens I mean the little green men who abduct stupid Americans rather than life on other planets which is beyond our technological expertise to detect.]

Perhaps you can expand on this a bit more? I.e. what false assumptions about the nature of God are implicit in this argument (notice that it is not necessary to fully comprehend something to believe that it exists)? And who is justifiably asserting that there is no reason to doubt the existence of God?

I don't discount either of those.

The fact that I personally haven't experienced either...nor have I been presented evidence to make me believe in either.

I guess I'm agnostic when it comes to those things. I don't believe in them but i accept that others do and that they may in fact exist.

But this isn't the claim in OP that I'm disputing.

My feelings on bigfoot and aliens (caveat from previous post accepted) pretty much reflect my feelings on God and are not far from those you present above.

I do not see enough evidence to make me believe in them so I do not believe. I also believe there are good arguments against their existence. So while I would not claim 100% certainty, I think existence is extremely unlikely.

If I understand, the argument reads:

1) The God presented to us in the major Western religions would not leave us with reason to doubt his existence.
2) We have reason to doubt his existence.
Therefore 3) The God presented to us in the major Western religions does not exist.

I admit it's difficult to refute 2), at least convincingly. Though there are certainly people who are unwaveringly sure of that fact that God exists, and the question becomes an issue of faith, and this argument will never be convincing. Maybe that should be taken as a given though and wasn't worth bringing up (quickly searched; link).

But 1) is a pretty huge claim, and one I doubt most Christian scholarly authorities agree with. If a theist suggested that it's entirely possible God would leave us reason to doubt his existence (since, as you were suggesting, it's not necessary that we completely understand God), doesn't this argument fail?

Stop wasting your time telling us what you think and start doing some actual research.

Extremely well put.

Jesus appears on toast all the time.

Surely you can see that this is not an argument of any kind, not even a bad one. It doesn't even qualify as a completely formed assertion. Actually, it's most akin to lol Dawkins mass market handwaving.

He may be wrong in saying its evidence against the biblical God. But it is odd that God would be out proud and indisputably loud for a fraction of humans existence and now hes back in the closet.

Where is this assertion? I was expecting it, but it never showed up. Maybe it sneaked by me.

Sure. I'd go a bit further and say it seems odd to us given that we aren't God and can't know his intentions, desires, or wisdom, but that's not important.

Are we done here?

The title.

"fact that Jesus has not appeared after technology advanced is evidence against Xtianit"


Yes, i agree and said the biblical God and his intentions are odd.

Although i would add his actions are cruel from my perspective depending on which version of Christianity are true.

Technology is always advancing.

This appears to be the conclusion which the OP intends to arrive at.

I mean, where does that assertions show up within the development of the actual argument?

This is false.

This is a non-response. I suppose your research shows that video recording existed in the first century CE.

Idk. But the title is one.

I agree that this is where most of the interesting action is on this argument. Many Christian theologians and philosophers have attempted to rebut this argument by appealing to the "hiddenness" of God. Basically, that God has reasons to not make her existence obvious to everyone. While I find these claims largely unconvincing, I think they probably defeat the logical version of this argument.

Considering the world is how many billion years old and how long has some form of man walked on Earth? I don't think it's odd.

It's only been 2000 years since he last walked the Earth.... may be another 200,000 before he returns.

What are you going to say when video recordings become an invalid source of proof and new forms of media arise?