It is more probable that Jesus was God than that He was not

When you outlined my logic at the beginning of your round, you were almost correct but not entirely. I will try and clarify and I apologize for not doing it previously because I used up all 8,000 characters. I'm simply saying that the evidence of the gospels and Paul's accounts being accurate plus the fact of the resurrection would bring us to the conclusion that it is more probable that Jesus was/is God than He was/is not. You gave a list of writings of people who have claimed to be resurrected and performed other miracles. I will also say that I know there are many people that will claim to be God and would even die for it. I'm simply saying that you provided no evidence that I should think those writings and/or people are credible and that those things actually happened. On the contrary, I gave numerous examples of why the gospels and Paul's writings are credible, and other early century writers who have confirmed their authorship. You said, "As a baseline, though, all the sources are equally credible. In order for his position to become statistically possible, he must prove that the accounts he uses as evidence (the Gospels) are more credible than the other texts, including the ones mentioned above, which conflict with Christianity." First off, you cannot possibly say that all sources are equally credible. That's a clear fallacy. Secondly, I did give you reasons to believe the gospels and Paul's writings are credible, while you gave me no reason to believe yours were. It is not my burden of proof to give evidence that every single person who ever claimed to be God was wrong. That would be nearly impossible. You said, "However, no historian can say an act was certainly supernatural, for that would mean disproving every single natural possibility. Miracles are by definition very rare, so my opponent must show that the natural explanation of this event is very unlikely." I agree that just because we cannot explain something naturally, it does not mean it is supernatural. All I'm asking is: is it more likely that it was natural or supernatural? I will go threw two of the most popular natural explanations and explain why they are wrong. 1. Legends-If the appearances of Jesus after death are legends one must explain the origin of the legend. We must remember that early Jews did not believe that the Messiah would rise from the dead, or that He would even die. So the disciples would have never thought to start a rumor of resurrection. Remember what they did just after Jesus' death? They hid in a room and locked the door because they thought they were going to be killed. That is when Jesus first appeared to them and the disciples started going out making disciples. If the resurrection is a legend one must explain the reason they went from hiding to boldly proclaiming Jesus' resurrection. "[His followers] no longer had confidence that Jesus had been sent by God, because they believed anyone crucified was accursed by God. They also had been taught that God would not let his Messiah suffer death. So they dispersed. The Jesus movement was all but stopped in its tracks. Then after a short period of time we see them abandoning their occupations, regathering, and committing themselves to spreading a very specific message- that Jesus Christ was the Messiah of God who died on a cross, returned to life, and was seen alive by them." 2. Hallucinations- "Hallucinations are individual occurrences. By their very nature only one person can see a given hallucination at a time. They certainly aren't something which can be seen by a group of people. Neither is possible that one person could somehow induce an hallucination in somebody else. Since an hallucination exist only in this subjective, personal sense, it is obvious that others cannot witness it." (p.238-239) This is a problem because Jesus appeared to multiple people at a time. In your claim that they could not have been written by the followers of Jesus because of the language and educational differences, I almost agree with you except for one major part. Someone who was highly trained in Greek could have written down what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John told them. You might say that this makes them less credible. Maybe slightly, but we must remember the people that are actually writing it down for them, have no reason to lie or change what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John said. If you can give me a credible reason why they would lie, I would love to hear it. You asked why it took so long to write the gospels. I gave evidence proving that whether the gospels were written 30years or 60years after the time of Jesus' death is very quickly compared to other historical figures at that time (My Alexander the Great argument.) You said, "Jesus made it clear to his disciples that the end of the world would come before their deaths, or the deaths of their contemporaries. In other words, before the 3rd generation." However, you provided no scripture to back that up. I have also never heard this argument before. The closest thing to it is in John 21:20-23 "Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, 'Lord, who is going to betray you?') When Peter saw him, he asked, 'Lord, what about him?' Jesus answered, 'If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.' Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, 'If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?'" So yes, a rumor did start that the disciples would not die but John clearly says this is not what Jesus taught. I apologize for maybe misunderstanding but I do not see your point in the Illiad example. You said, "it can not be said that the authors meticulously gathered information from numerous eyewitnesses as historians " Luke 1:1-4 "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." The gospels are not "myth-like oral story telling" as you say. Based on all the evidence I have provided. The gospels specifically were not for converting people as you say, based on Luke 1:1-4 which I already talked about. Of course, one of their goals was to convert people to Christianity because Jesus told them to go and make disciples. Remember Paul persecuted the early Christian church before he himself became a Christian. He just went out boldly teaching about Jesus to the point where he was arrested several times and eventually put to death. Even if the gospels were solely to convert people, (i'm not claiming they are) that gives no evidence that they are unreliable.