Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[YourRoyalHighness]

Christianity is an oppressed religion. It's extremely heartbreaking to see what a lot of its followers (and non-followers) have done/are doing to gradually blur/distort its message and ruin it as time passes.

May I ask, are you a Christian?

 

[jimmysmith560]

May I ask, are you a Christian?

Yep!

 

[YourRoyalHighness]

Yep!

Brother! Which denomination?

 

[jimmysmith560]

Brother! Which denomination?

I am Greek Orthodox, although growing up I went to a Maronite Catholic church.

 

[YourRoyalHighness]

I am Greek Orthodox, although growing up I went to a Maronite Catholic church.

SHUT UP ME TOO!

 

[jimmysmith560]

SHUT UP ME TOO!

HAHAHA CRAZY!!

 

[YourRoyalHighness]

HAHAHA CRAZY!!

LMAOOO Im middle eastern but am greek orthodox haha

 

[jimmysmith560]

LMAOOO Im Lebanese but am greek orthodox haha

HAHA nice! Yeah the majority of Lebanese Christians are Maronite. I'm originally from Syria, although I was born and lived a significant part of my life in Lebanon before coming to Australia.

 

[YourRoyalHighness]

HAHA nice! Yeah the majority of Lebanese Christians are Maronite. I'm originally from Syria, although I was born and lived a significant part of my life in Lebanon before coming to Australia.

woww thats so cool do you attend a greek orthodox church now or do you attend an arabic speaking orthodox church.

 

[jimmysmith560]

woww thats so cool do you attend a greek orthodox church now or do you attend an arabic speaking orthodox church.

I actually attended a couple of churches here, one was Orthodox and the other was Maronite Catholic, both of which are Arabic-speaking (and English of course).

 

[jimmysmith560]

yes me too I go to an Antiochan orthodox church as they do english and arabic

Sick stuff! Are you Australian-born? (if you don't mind me asking).

 

[dan964]

I mean this is fair enough and I don’t know the extent of what you believe in.
I’m also no expert on Christianity but if a lack of science here is enough reason to doubt this claim then since there is zero scientific evidence for how someone would walk on water, rise from the dead, get pregnant by a spirit etc, these claims should also be heavily scrutinised and doubted by Christians who make that argument. It also should be taken into consideration that these claims completely break our understanding of science with no scientific evidence to back them up unlike the common ancestor thing which at least has some actual ground. Not sure if you 100% believe in the miracles that I mentioned above but I don’t know if you can be a Christian whose open to the idea that these claims in the bible may be false, which is hypocritical.

You do realise I am not rejecting it solely on the basis of incomplete evidence. What I was suggesting is that as I see, some of evolution theory is an argument from ignorance not evidence; but more importantly than even within the scientific community, the explanation of origin of the human species has varied due to different evidences (see the link referred to in the last post as an example).

Secondly, I don't think an understanding of the world, is limited to what can be understood via science.
I'm not limited therefore to scientific evidence to determine what is true. Historical evidence, literary evidence, correspondence and consistency, legal evidence, testimony all can be weighed up.

Scientific evidence is not the primary metric used to determine what is true or false.

there is zero scientific evidence for how someone would walk on water, rise from the dead, get pregnant by a spirit etc, these claims should also be heavily scrutinised and doubted by Christians who make that argument.

That's because miracles are not necessarily scientific, and therefore may defy scientific explanation. The writings of the Bible have been analysed and mine for over 2 millennia.

 

[SylviaB]

That's because miracles are not necessarily scientific, and therefore may defy scientific explanation. The writings of the Bible have been analysed and mine for over 2 millennia.

The fact is says so in the bible is not valid evidence. It is wholly insufficient. There are any number of much more reasonable explanations other than literally a suspension of the laws of nature.

Again, isn't it truly bizarre that all these miracles occurred only just slightly before (relative to the entire history of humanity) the advent of video cameras?

Where is the moral value in making people have to believe in unreliable bronze age eyewitness testimony instead of waiting a few thousand years and letting them witness it directly? God waited 198,000 years after the first humans existed, why not wait a few thousand more instead of making people rely on faith?

 

[dan964]

The fact is says so in the bible is not valid evidence.

That's presumptuous. The Bible can be weighed up the same as any testimony.

There are any number of much more reasonable explanations other than literally a suspension of the laws of nature.

Again, isn't it truly bizarre that all these miracles occurred only just slightly before (relative to the entire history of humanity) the advent of video cameras?

Where is the moral value in making people have to believe in unreliable bronze age eyewitness testimony instead of waiting a few thousand years and letting them witness it directly? God waited 198,000 years after the first humans existed, why not wait a few thousand more instead of making people rely on faith?

Christ had to come when the Roman Empire was in power. And the miracles all are tied up with him.

So no its not bizarre at all. Secondly, God intended that people would rely on the testimony of those eyewitnesses (who then penned the gospels, which form part of the bible).

 

[SylviaB]

That's presumptuous. The Bible can be weighed up the same as any testimony.

Okay? There's testimony of all kinds of goofy shit throughout history but you only choose to accept the ones that align with your religious views. Did muhammad split the moon too? Or is only biblical testimony valid?

Christ had to come when the Roman Empire was in power. And the miracles all are tied up with him.

Okay? But why not send down other prophets in the modern age to perform miracles? There's no reason this couldn't be done except god is an asshole and wants people's souls to be risked on the basis of belief in fantastic claims with no valid evidence. Or, of course, god doesn't exist, and there cannot be prophets today because there are no such thing as miracle performing prophets.

So no its not bizarre at all. Secondly, God intended that people would rely on the testimony of those eyewitnesses (who then penned the gospels, which form part of the bible).

But why? Why make people dependent on unreliable testimony written mostly in dead languages in order to save their souls? Why is 'faith' virtuous? Why punish people for not accepting unreliable, ancient testimony? Why is it immoral for me not to believe in bronze age mythology? Why is it "moral" to accept the bible? Why is that what is most important? How totally bizarre that an omnipotent god would make imperfect, powerless humans but for some reason attach cosmic significance to whether they believe in him or not, and threaten to punish them for not believing in him despite offering no direct evidence, even though he easily could.

Of course, all of this is bad enough as it is, but then we have to acknowledge that free will doesn't even exist, and cannot possibly exist even if we have souls, because the idea of free will is logically incoherent. I cannot "choose" to believe the bible is accurate any more than I can "choose" to believe ancient greek mythology is true or the easter bunny is true or that 1 + 1 =3. I couldn't make myself believe these things are true even if my life depended on it.

These things are not a choice, they cannot possibly be a choice. My unconscious mind either manifests belief in them, or it doesn't. It is logically incoherent to suggest I can consciously "choose" to believe something, so to punish people for not believing in something is totally absurd and is the most obvious proof that christianity and other similar religions must be false. This is EXACTLY the kind of thing that would exist in a man made religion, not something of divine origin.

Imagine a religion like christianity is totally of human origin, what would we expect to find? Only a handful of people get to witness these alleged 'miracles', there are never any prophets ever again when these acts could be independently recorded and verified, there are no supernatural methods employed for god to make his existence known and he is equally constrained in communication method (written eye witness testimony) as mortal humans are, and we get told that 'faith' is the most fundamental part of the religion and no direct evidence is ever made available. People believing in the religion is what matters (not helping others or something that actually aligns with the sense of morality that humans are imbued with) and belief is enforced under threat of punishment in the after life. This is EXACTLY what we would expect a totally man made religion to be like, so don't you think its an enormous coincidence that god chose to make things exactly the same as if he didn't exist?

Seriously, what would be different if god didn't exist? You can say there would have been no miracles and therefore no testimony for these miracles, but we know that there are countless examples of testimony for miracles throughout history that did not occur (or at least christians do not believe in), so we know for a fact that miracles actually occurring is not a prerequisite for testimony of miracles occurring.

If all of this could exist and therefore be explained without the existence of god, it would be a grand coincidence if god actually existed.

 

[dan964]

Okay? There's testimony of all kinds of goofy shit throughout history but you only choose to accept the ones that align with your religious views. Did muhammad split the moon too? Or is only biblical testimony valid?

Your whole post hangs on what is considered 'valid or direct evidence'. If by valid evidence you only consider 'scientific evidence' aka. more specifically what you can see, touch or hear. Then you have a lot of problems.

I was more challenging your based assumption that historical books (e.g. some of the books that make up the Bible) could not regarded as valid evidence; especially those that are written as historical accounts such as the gospels.

We have to weigh that and any account. There is criteria by which we assess whether an reported incident or not. There are factors to consider like:

Multiple attestation: are their more than one account of the event? We have 4 detailed early accounts of Christ's life, corroborated to a lesser extent by Roman and Jewish sources.
Coherence: is what happened (the key facts/details) clear?
The character of the person writing the account. How they present themselves in the material aka. do they only present themselves in a positive light.
Correspondence: is there any details that correspond with known locations, figures to which are attested in history.
(In the case of Biblical criticism/theology, this also extends if the prophet claims succession from previous prophets or fulfilment, does his message line up or continue consistently on from what previous prophets spoke of)
(I reject the Quran partially on the basis that it claims to succeed/continue the previous prophets but at many points is at direct contradiction)
This is the textual criticism, and the same standard would apply to accounts from 100 years ago; say from the late 1900s.

Okay? But why not send down other prophets in the modern age to perform miracles? There's no reason this couldn't be done except god is an asshole and wants people's souls to be risked on the basis of belief in fantastic claims with no valid evidence. Or, of course, god doesn't exist, and there cannot be prophets today because there are no such thing as miracle performing prophets.

But why? Why make people dependent on unreliable testimony written mostly in dead languages in order to save their souls? Why is 'faith' virtuous? Why punish people for not accepting unreliable, ancient testimony? Why is it immoral for me not to believe in bronze age mythology? Why is it "moral" to accept the bible? Why is that what is most important? How totally bizarre that an omnipotent god would make imperfect, powerless humans but for some reason attach cosmic significance to whether they believe in him or not, and threaten to punish them for not believing in him despite offering no direct evidence, even though he easily could.

There are some who claim miracles still happen today. But regardless I don't think you would accept them.
(Nowadays, yes we have video cameras but we can also the existence of cinemas, suggests that photography / videography has its weaknesses).

This is because when you actually pick up from any point in the Biblical timeline, it all converges on this figure of the Messiah or Christ. You could ask why didn't he come now instead of 2000 years later. The point of the miracles in the time of Christ was to verify that he was the Christ; not to prove God's existence. (Miracles do nothing for the existence of God, since most people who are unbelievers just reject them anyways). Since God's own revelation about himself converges on this figure called Christ, that is why aptly named Christians attach (as you say) cosmic significance to our response to this person of Christ.

Post Edit: For e.g. the Holy Fire miracle posted by an Eastern Orthodox Christian, if one of their own people comes and says well actually we lit the candle, then it does cause doubt on the whole thing.

Interesting the opponents of Christ e.g. in the Talmud, do not deny the wonders but they attribute it to evil origins rather than to God. If both the proponents and opponents agree on something that is more likely for that something to have occured.

Of course, all of this is bad enough as it is, but then we have to acknowledge that free will doesn't even exist, and cannot possibly exist even if we have souls, because the idea of free will is logically incoherent.

I cannot "choose" to believe the bible is accurate any more than I can "choose" to believe ancient greek mythology is true or the easter bunny is true or that 1 + 1 =3. I couldn't make myself believe these things are true even if my life depended on it.

These things are not a choice, they cannot possibly be a choice. My unconscious mind either manifests belief in them, or it doesn't.

My edit: These things are not a choice, they cannot possibly be a choice. My subconscious mind either manifests belief in them, or it doesn't

(Excuse the subtle correction in the last line). That's a broader debate/topic lol, that is in the realm of philosophy or perhaps even anthropology/psychology (which sometimes intersects with this topic).

It comes down to what you think freedom is. If you take this idea of freedom as a unimpeded mind not affected by anything decision, then no that idea of a will unaffected, doesn't exist (because we all have motivations and habits and tendencies). And even then I can choose to do something that I cannot actually execute, e.g. I would like to drive to the moon; but I have no ability or authority to do so. But humans still make choices e.g. what you ate for breakfast was a decision you made. It may have been affected by other factors, but its still a decision made.

That topic deserves its own thread. I'll reply to your criteria in the next post.

 

[dan964]

Imagine a religion like christianity is totally of human origin, what would we expect to find?

Lol, I would expect that by now, we would found direct evidence of its fabrication.
Take the one thing that would proof for sure that Christianity was made up by the disciples. Just produce the dead body of Jesus and there you have it, Christianity disproven. And the Jews and Romans had ample opportunities?

Lets say we don't have the ability to do that, the next thing is to look at the disciples. At any point under trial, they could have admitted the whole thing was made up, but instead they were killed. Either they were insanely stupid or they really believed in what they saw was the risen Jesus.
Take for instance a skeptic who is actively killing Christians, then suddenly all of a sudden is promoting the message of the cross. What happened there?

On a more serious note, lets assess your criteria. I've numbered them.

1. Only a handful of people get to witness these alleged 'signs'

Firstly notice, I have replaced the word 'miracles' with a substitute. In fact the word 'miracle' (or 'miraculum') never appears in the gospel account, rather than language that John (and the other writers of the NT) uses is that of 'signs' and 'wonders' rather this modern idea of miracles.

This introduces an important but subtle differences that signs and wonders are displays of power and goodness; rather than the stuff of legends or mythos (which is what connotation the word miracle carries in pop culture). They are intended to confirm the truthfulness of the message of the one performing it.

This means to assess the truthfulness of a religion we have to assess the contents of the message (aka. what does the religion say about this world, about humanity, about morality), since the miracles (at least in Christianity) are acted to verify the authenticity or identity (or creds) of the speaker.

So its actually back-to-front. The aptly named signs were the verification back in the day for the message, and nowadays we have the preserved written testimony. John writes about this matter:
" Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

In terms of numbers, what you actually have is at least 513 people witnessing the resurrection of Christ, 900 men (not including women) witnessing 2 occasions of Jesus multiplying loaves and fishes etc; plus several others miracles with differing.

2. There are never any prophets ever again when these acts could be independently recorded and verified
3. There are no supernatural methods [today] employed for god to make his existence known.

These are basically saying the same thing. If we cannot accept the testimony of those who witnessed such signs then yes we would have no 'supernatural methods'.

To answer your question as to why not more today, a different writer writes:
"In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven."

The reason why God is not sending any more prophets (again another reason why I reject Islam and Mormonism) is because his will/plan are finished in Christ, and there is no new words/message. I've often used this analogy, before a film premieres we are given like short clips e.g. trailers that reveal part of the movie; and then once the movie is released we don't go back to trailers, we watch the movie.

There is no need for miracles today to confirm the testimony of the prophets is because Christ is the final 'prophet'. However his work is carried out today in the church. As his people share the message and people's lives are changed - that is the wonderous acts of God that are continuing to this day (so the nature and extent of his works have changed).

This authority or verification then is carried on, in the preservation of the eyewitness' testimony, Peter writes close to his death:

"So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will make every effort to see that after my departure* you will always be able to remember these things.

For we did not follow cleverly devised stories [myths] when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
*e.g. by writing this letter.

3. There are no supernatural methods [today] employed for god to make his existence known.
4. He is equally constrained in communication method (written eye witness testimony) as mortal humans are

Lol maybe God knew that naturalists would just reject any supernatural methods or explain anyway everything naturalistically.

In all seriousness, God has primarily utilized the spoken and written word about himself as his revelation rather than miraculous.

Secondly, God has revealed himself in such a way that most people think is frustrating or even foolish, Paul writes:
"For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God "
and it is this same message that Christians proclaim today.

Jesus prayed this prayer "I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me".

The point is that people don't believe on the basis of signs and wonders, but rather on the acceptance of spoken (and written) testimony.
Knowing a person has always been to do with speaking. I don't know a person if they don't speak to them. God is the same (and we inherit that aspect from him).

"He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’"

5. People believing in the religion is what matters (not helping others or something that actually aligns with the sense of morality that humans are imbued with)
6. Belief is enforced under threat of punishment in the after life.

Even religion or ideology demands commitment, and what that entails differs. Islam for instance requires certain good deeds etc.
What you are tapping into is the question of "why does God send supposedly good people to hell?"
Because if God says it is not good to reject him, then you are not good.

In the case of Christianity, people are not saved because they are good, but because they trust in Christ who was good.
But belief and actions are not completely inseparable. The idea of 'faith' is closer to idea of trust than mere intellectual acceptance of the existence of God. And when you believe something it affects your actions. If you believe that God is good and loving, then you would be good and loving because God is; not merely out of self-preservation.

John writes: "From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."

The reason why people believe something is because they believe the testimony of those who saw, heard things firsthand.
In most cases, people stay Christians not out of fear of self-preservation against judgement, but rather they actually love Christ for who he is and what he is done, as John writes in his first letter:

"Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.... God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. We love because he first loved us. Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister."

 

[dan964]

Maybe a good aim of this thread is to come up with some questions for people to ask regarding assessment of stuff:

Does a religion's main message still make sense if God doesn't exist? If so, then the religion is either not a religion, or is man-made.

Does the character of the person on which the religion comes from match the teachings of the religion?
If the founder/foundation of the religion is inconsistent or hypocritical; and that cannot be reasonably justified, then the religion is man-made.
e.g. if their is one rule for the leader, but a different for others.

Religions that tend to be man-made tend to emphasise more what man has to do to know and please God, rather than what God is doing so that people can know him and be pleasing to him.

Correspondence with science (provided we don't assume naturalism) and other known and accepted historical details.

 

[SylviaB]

Multiple attestation: are their more than one account of the event? We have 4 detailed early accounts of Christ's life, corroborated to a lesser extent by Roman and Jewish sources.

The existence of Jesus as an historical figure is not the issue here, and is insufficient for proof of his divinity.

(In the case of Biblical criticism/theology, this also extends if the prophet claims succession from previous prophets or fulfilment, does his message line up or continue consistently on from what previous prophets spoke of)

I'm not sure I understand why this is proof. Aligning your claims with those of established historical prophets seems to be perfectly consistent with a prophet not actually being divine. It's not proof of a lack of divinity, but this can be explained without Jesus being divine, so it cannot be proof that he is.

There are some who claim miracles still happen today. But regardless I don't think you would accept them.
(Nowadays, yes we have video cameras but we can also the existence of cinemas, suggests that photography / videography has its weaknesses).

There are numerous people alive today, almost certainly hundreds of thousands of people around the world, who believe in ghosts on the basis of having witnessed them. Which is to say, we have convergent eyewitness testimony for the existence of ghosts. I am 100% certain that at least a sizable proportion of these people are entirely sincere in their belief of what they claim to have witnessed and are not fabricating their experiences. Does this prove ghosts exist?

I would imagine you would think the answer is no, but I'm not sure why.

This is because when you actually pick up from any point in the Biblical timeline, it all converges on this figure of the Messiah or Christ. You could ask why didn't he come now instead of 2000 years later. The point of the miracles in the time of Christ was to verify that he was the Christ; not to prove God's existence. (Miracles do nothing for the existence of God, since most people who are unbelievers just reject them anyways).

If I witnessed a convincing miracle, it would cause me to seriously consider the existence of god. This would be categorically more true for people in the past who lacked natural explanations for many phenomena.

Since God's own revelation about himself converges on this figure called Christ, that is why aptly named Christians attach (as you say) cosmic significance to our response to this person of Christ.

Except, we have no genuine evidence of "god's revelation". People may have claimed to have communicated directly with god, but even if these experiences are not actual fabrications, they can be wholly explained without the existence of god.

Interesting the opponents of Christ e.g. in the Talmud, do not deny the wonders but they attribute it to evil origins rather than to God. If both the proponents and opponents agree on something that is more likely for that something to have occured.

This is not evidence they happened. The people in question would not have directly witnessed these acts even if they occurred, and people in these times strongly believed that these kind of things can happen.

(Excuse the subtle correction in the last line). That's a broader debate/topic lol, that is in the realm of philosophy or perhaps even anthropology/psychology (which sometimes intersects with this topic).

It's not a valid correction. Everything that we think, feel and believe necessarily comes from our unconscious mind. The origins of our thoughts or feelings are totally mysterious and not subject to introspection the way the subconscious mind is. You have no more idea of what you're going to think next than what somebody you're talking to is going to say next. No amount of introspection can reveal this to you.

This is not a different debate though, but because it is absolutely central to religion. Without free will, religion makes no sense. Even if you believe in free will, it is undeniably true that belief is not a matter of CHOICE. It is something that happens. I don't choose to believe 5 * 6 = 30. I understand multiplication, and so the idea that 5 * 6 = 30 is utterly, hopelessly compelling to me. I could not possibly decide to consciously believe that it equals 31 instead, even if my life depended on it.

It comes down to what you think freedom is. If you take this idea of freedom as a unimpeded mind not affected by anything decision, then no that idea of a will unaffected, doesn't exist (because we all have motivations and habits and tendencies).

The problem with free will is considerably more fundamental than this.

People who believe free will exists believe that their conscious thought process is the cause of beliefs, choices and actions. This is logically incoherent.

To consciously decide something, it means you would have to think about something BEFORE you've thought about, and that thought itself would had to have been brought into existence by a prior thought, ad infinitum.

I mean, let's say you were to think "I'm going to think of an elephant" and lo and behold, an elephant appears in your mind's eye. Free will, right?

Well, why did you choose an elephant? Why not a golden retriever? Why not an inanimate rock? You chose elephant, but where did this decision come from? Was the decision made by your conscious mind? What does that even mean? You thought about an elephant instead of a mountain, but where did that choice come from? You thought about thinking about an elephant? Okay, but where did THAT thought come from? You thought about thinking about thinking about an elephant? At some point down the causal chain, the thought must have simply appeared in consciousness. It cannot have been created by your conscious mind, which means it must have come from your unconscious mind.

And even then I can choose to do something that I cannot actually execute, e.g. I would like to drive to the moon; but I have no ability or authority to do so. But humans still make choices e.g. what you ate for breakfast was a decision you made. It may have been affected by other factors, but its still a decision made.

Yes, but its a decision made by your unconscious mind.

 

[SylviaB]

Lol, I would expect that by now, we would found direct evidence of its fabrication.

I never said it was a fabrication. I don't believe it was.

Take the one thing that would proof for sure that Christianity was made up by the disciples. Just produce the dead body of Jesus and there you have it, Christianity disproven. And the Jews and Romans had ample opportunities?

Well, how do you prove a body belongs to christ? It cannot be proven after even modest decomposition, which means even if the resurrection is true, the romans could have claimed to have found the body of christ if they had wanted to, and so the failure of romans to produce a body is consistent with resurrection true and with it being false.

Lets say we don't have the ability to do that, the next thing is to look at the disciples. At any point under trial, they could have admitted the whole thing was made up, but instead they were killed. Either they were insanely stupid or they really believed in what they saw was the risen Jesus.
Take for instance a skeptic who is actively killing Christians, then suddenly all of a sudden is promoting the message of the cross. What happened there?

People in ancient times believed a wide assortment of things that appear crazy by today's standards. It was much easier for them to believe in supernatural claims, and the fact that numerous other religions have people who believe to have spoken to god shows that this experience can be explained without the existence of god.

Firstly notice, I have replaced the word 'miracles' with a substitute. In fact the word 'miracle' (or 'miraculum') never appears in the gospel account, rather than language that John (and the other writers of the NT) uses is that of 'signs' and 'wonders' rather this modern idea of miracles.

The distinction is meaningless. We're talking about the same fundamental thing. Acts that suspend the laws of nature. The definition of the latin world miraculum is literally 'wonder'.

This means to assess the truthfulness of a religion we have to assess the contents of the message (aka. what does the religion say about this world, about humanity, about morality), since the miracles (at least in Christianity) are acted to verify the authenticity or identity (or creds) of the speaker.

There's no reason why some people should get to witness these miracles directly, while others should have to rely on unreliable written testimony. Except of course, if people are mistaken about miracles ever having occurred at all.