I'm guessing you fr0d0 and Ryft are presuppositionalists? If so, what does that entail about the way you evaluate arguments of an empirical nature for and against the Bible? For instance, supposing I had arguments and evidence that Jesus wasn't crucified (I don't really but suppose I do), would you attempt to deal with the evidence and my interpretation of it? Perhaps even cite counter-evidence to support that Jesus was crucified?
Are you concerned at all with there being evidence to support your beliefs? Or is that not a concern for you? Could you have absolutely no evidence in order to believe to the things you do?
Are you concerned at all with there being evidence to support your beliefs? Or is that not a concern for you? Could you have absolutely no evidence in order to believe to the things you do?
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
