Is Christianity Illogical?

[Gambit]

Gambit:

Perhaps this would be a more complete and logical argument?

1. The Old Testament contains predictions of the future
2. These predictions are specific and verifiable
3. They are predictions their authors could never have known would occur
4. Only a God, or someone from the future would know the future with 100% accuracy 100% of the time
Therefore
A. The writing of the Old Testament was guided by God, or someone from the future


I'm thinking the 4 premises support the conclusion (A) and so the conclusion might be true, as long as none of the premises are proven untrue. How about you? What do you think?

The question has already been adequately answered before I got to it, but here's my two pennies worth. Yes, they support the conclusion provided they are true. That makes your argument logical only in the sense that it adheres to the accepted rules of an argument. However, before accepting any assertion/preposition/premise we most examine them, test them and verify them. I would disagree with teaearlgreyhot (Hope I got that right from memory), only in that we cannot actually verify either the Christian or counter-evidence. By which I mean, other assertions can be introduced to the argument which will then either have to be proven, debunked or at least accepted in order to continue. For every secular review of the OT, some clever Christian scholar will come along with claims/evidence that they believe shifts the argument back in their favor, and visa versa. It all hinges on the credibility of each source, and whether both sides can come to agreement on the evidence those sources provide.

It's for these reasons that many believe that the only honest position to hold in relation to Gods is Agnostic. Most of the evidence from either side comes from written texts whose authors cannot be called to account. Therefore, we have to weigh up what makes sense with all the other data we have - geological, archaeological etc. and the consistency of written accounts. However, if we adopt the position where we say that we cannot know, then logic favors non-believe over belief. Simply put, in the absence of credible and verifiable evidence of the positive claim, we have no reason to believe.

I hope that makes sense. I have difficulty in getting my train of thought from my brain onto the computer.