I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

** REPEATED AS UNANSWERED ***

It's for Youhoo!

I see no refutation of my argument in your post, just some statements of private opinions, some of which even cosonate with exactly what the argument states in some areas of the epistemic structure and non/affirmation implicit in atheism, so I could only speculate that you didn't state that to consonate with the argument intentionally so, because you hadn't considered it.

Jon uses the bible to prove the God of the Bible as true.

Sure, I make reference (and in that sense use it) to the bible because it's biblical doctrine that I am referencing proof for. I am not proving biblical doctrine with biblical doctrine, but making a reference -surprisingly enough- to biblical doctrine because it's biblical doctrine that I am referencing intrinsic/extrinsic proofs for.

If I was proving biblical doctrine with biblical doctrine, then all I would need would be to state biblical texts to begin with, which is not what I have done. So please stop using false accusations like this.

For something to be falsifiable, it must be demonstrated how it could be false, not how it is false.

I agree, no doubt. I just don't see how you would falsify the law of contradiction, if it is itself a premise for that falsification. It's a bit trying to falsify falsification itself, if that is the case.

Methinks you have a twisted definition of "falsify"; that or I misunderstood you.

The problem is that it seems the law of contradiction is what makes falsification possible, and therefore also what makes its own falsification impossible since it has to be invoked in a falsification.

If you find a sentence that contains two real contradictions which are truly contradictory and still both true, then that sentence contradicts the law of contradiction, and the law of contradiction does not apply to that sentence, and the sentence cannot presuppose or invoke the law of contradiction to contradict the law of contradiction, since it cannot exclude the truth of the law of contradiction on grounds of a contradiction between the sentence and the law of contradiction, unless it already presupposes the truth of the law of contradiction which it cannot do without contradicting it self, since it supposedly contains a contradiction of the law of contradiction.

Even trying to express this made it completely incoherent, because I think it does lead to nonsense to even speculate of such a falsification.