By the statement that my standard of authority was the
objective Word of God, I was trying to establish that the source on which I base my information is from outside of my own self-generating mind or imagination. Therefore not subjective in origin but revealed, disclosed from the mind of the All-knowing Creator of all else that exists. Some of the attributes which make up his nature are omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, God is spirit and limitless, good, transcendent, holy, sovereign, infinitely independent of needing anything outside of Himself. So I try to present answers, arguments and responses as they are given from the Bible as best I can. God has made certain "
Laws of Logic" to aid in the communication from one rational being with another and these
laws are universal and binding in every philosophical school of thought that admits to uniformity and order in our universe that I am aware of. When establishing and presenting the worldview from the presuppositions of each individual (and everyone has a worldview) these Laws of Logic and/or the logical fallacies that seek to circumvent these laws are employed by everyone who is attempting to present their case. They are
universal. To deny or state that you are not employing logic is simply false. However to be wilfully illogical or refuse to address a premise in a formal or semi-formal logical debate, as this, is a common occurrence. But since you are using your reasoning faculties to do this, unless your are an imbicile, you are, of necessity, employing logic. With well-informed participants on
both sides are each held accountable to the rules of logic and logical fallacies are, for the most part, recognized. Those that continually divert from the issue or employ logical fallacies in their argumentation are exposed and considered to have lost the debate by unbiased observers.
"@rick b, the bible is not objective: it is hearsay evidence that is totally unverified and has been modified to make it seem more plausible"
Other than your personal opinion do you have any reliable source which has historical, irrefutable or at least convincing evidence for this accusation. Do you have enough, for say, an agnostic to be convinced? Please cite some.
"Also you seem to be operating on the premise that everyone believes in god but some choose to deny it. This is NOT the case."
Your premise..."This is NOT the case" is NOT the case! Not very convincing is it?
"This thread is about the nature of god IF it exists
The assumption that everyone believes in god is your main source of confusion. agnostics simply believe that given the lack of evidence to form a (dis)proof of god one must hold out on an answer"
An agnostic refuses to know any ultimate reality for certain. Are you now certain what my main source of confusion is?
If agnostics "must hold out on an answer" if God exists, why do all of their answers presuppose the non-existence of God?
Do agnostics(who don't know for certain) simply believe or
know there is insufficient evidence for the existence of God? How much evidence is enough to prove the existence of God? Is that enough for everybody? How much lack of evidence is enough to disprove the existence of God? Is that enough lack for everybody? No matter how much evidence is given obstinate unbelievers will always say it is not enough - "neither would they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
- Atheists claim there is no "evidence" for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
- The demand for "evidence" and "proof" actually presupposes the historicity of Christ's Resurrection.
- Denying Christ's Resurrection leads to the destruction of the concepts of "proof" and "evidence."
- How would the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection of Christ be regarded if they were submitted as evidence in a court of law? This fascinating question forms the basis for Simon Greenleaf's classic study of the rules of legal evidence as applied to the New Testament accounts of the first Easter.
- Royal Professor of Law at Harvard, Simon Greenleaf, was considered to be the greatest expert of evidence the world had ever known. The Supreme Justice of the Supreme Court said that Greenleaf's testimony is the most basic and compelling testimony that can be accepted in any English speaking court in the world. When Greenleaf spoke, that settled the matter. He was far and away the most knowledgeable person on evidence the world had ever known. The London Times said that more light on jurisprudence had come from Greenleaf than all the jurists of Europe combined.
Greenleaf had one inviolable principle in his classrooms at Harvard, and that was, you never make up your mind about any significant matter without first considering the evidence. Greenleaf was not a Christian. When challenged by one of his students with this principle, he admitted that he had not considered the evidence. When he did, he became a Christian: believed in the deity, death and resurrection of Jesus.
After examining every thread of information he could find he said in his book, The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined for the Rules of Evidence, that if any unbiased jury in the world considered the evidence for the resurrection of Christ, they would have to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth actually rose from the dead.
And so he became a believer that Jesus was God and was converted. He wrote, "In requiring this candor and simplicity of mind, and those who would investigate the truth of our religion..." He sees that Christianity is, in fact, the only evidential historical religion in the world, and the whole things rests upon evidence which he finds so compelling and so overwhelming that any honest person with an open mind examining the evidence would be like himself inescapably drawn to accept it. And so he sets forth his first rule of legal evidence and for any other ancient document.
"Every document apparently ancient coming from the proper repository or custody and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise."
"This ancient document, the Scripture, has come from the proper repository, that is, it is has been in the hands of the persons of the Church for 2000 years almost and it bears on its face no evident marks of forgery, and therefore the law presumes it to be genuine, and those who would presume otherwise upon them devolves the responsibility of proving it to be false. We don't have to prove it to be true. They have to prove it to be false. That's what the law says."
(Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined for the Rules of Evidence)
"It was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."
(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29.)