The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[WesOlsen]

All of scripture is the inspired word of God and used as His direct revelation to us in order to fulfil His redemptive purposes.

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness”- 2 Timothy 3:16 (ESV)

That's a very impressive quote, back to the old circular reasoning trick.

No, I have deductive reasons for believing what I believe. That is superior to anything inductive.

I've seen you bring up this deductive nonsense a few times now, and it's time to put that myth to bed along with the others. Outside of formal systems of maths and logic, deduction doesn't give you a get out of jail free card. In the words of AC grayling, deductions "have psychological novelty but never logical novelty". A deductively valid argument is capable of espousing complete shit. An argument is only deductively sound if we know that the information in the prems are true. Since there is clearly not agreement on the outrageously confident claim that all scripture is the word of god, your arguments do not automatically trump any induction. On the contrary, outside of maths and logic, we entirely rely on the critical thinking concepts of 'inductive force' and 'rational persuasiveness'. Consulting any philosophy/critical thinking text book will verify this. A case can only be deductively sound if no counter case can be placed on the table, and seeing as everyone on this forum, and indeed every rational person on the planet can present an inductively forceful argument that casts doubt on divine origins of scripture, then your deductions don't prove a thing. Penning a few P1, P2 and C in standard form doesn't impress anyone here, it might win over your gullible church buddies but the inductive force of your arguments is weak.

This is blatantly false. When it first looked like we had found human and dinosaur footprints together in the Tumbler Ridge region of Canada there were evolutionists claiming that it would be evidence for time travel and not that humans and dinosaurs ever coexisted during the Earth’s history. You have provided another great example of how a person forces the evidence to fit the paradigm. Rather than believing dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old you’d rather believe that soft tissue and proteins can last for millions of years even though that directly contradicts what we observe to be the case.

LOL, the dino footprints one again. I provide a great example of the rational persuasiveness of the scientific method, that is one that values radiometric dating techniques over highly dubious dino footprints. There is only one person with a pre-determined conclusion here, and it's you. Don't call on scientific methods when you've already decided the conclusion, that's not science as science has built in error correction mechanisms and has the balls to explain exactly what could disprove a theory. Religion conceeds no such weakness because it is arrogant and dogmatic.

I do not think “contradict” means what you think it means.

Person A: “I went to a party last night and Martha was there”
Person B: “I went to a party last night and Martha and Mary were there.”
Person C: “I went to a party last night and Tim was there.”

These accounts do not contradict one another, neither do the resurrection accounts.

John: Mary Magdalene > the body had been spiced
Matthew: Mary Magdeline AND the other mary > they came to see the tomb
Mark: Magdeline, mother of james and the other woman > they'd already seen the tomb, but bought spices
Luke: Magdeline, Joanna, Mary mother of james and the other woman > had already seen the tomb, but bought spices

I see, so its possible that they were all at the party but the authors couldn't agree on who came together or whether they were alone. John says that the body was already spiced when Magdeline arrived, yet Mark and Luke seem to imply that she came to spice the as of yet un-spiced body. Lets say we give you the benefit of the doubt on this dubious narrative, you've then got to contend with:

Matthew: The tomb was not open (28:2)
Mark: The tomb was open (16:4)
Luke: Was open (24:2)
John: Was open (20:1)

and who was there when they arrived, maybe at the same time but maybe not together? :

Matthew: One angel sitting on the stone
Mark: One young man sitting inside on the right
Luke: two men standing inside
John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed

So Magdeline has come to spice a body both with her friends and without them, the body that wasn't spiced yet but was already spiced, and the tomb was not open but it was open, and there was one angel on the stone, a young man, two young men and two angels......... And did the women tell anyone what had happened? Mark says No (16:8) but the other three say yes. There are then discrepancies regarding who Jesus visited and where, after he came back from the dead.

What on Earth are you talking about?

The gospel of peter says that two young men descended from the sky and went inside the tomb, then two men with massive heads carried out a third man, followed by a cross. A voice from heaven asks "Have you preached to those who sleep?" and the cross answers "Yes"

Yes we do and it was already open when they arrived. Rather than getting these off of atheist websites you’d be better off just reading the gospels for yourself.

Well i'm reading it right now in my paperback copy of the bible....

…so you are conceding that believing in RNA spontaneous generation is just as much of a faith position as believing in God? Well ok then.

This really is the key element to your argument. You repeatedly assert that abiogenesis is pure faith, yet the basis of your argument is that to believe molecules could begin to self replicate on a planet with the early stages of what we might call an atmosphere..............is mentally retarded (despite it being rationally persuasive in the context of what we currently know about DNA and RNA) and that the subsequent evolution of species from such beginnings is mental...............but that in the depths of space at the beginning of time, an alternative being can suddenly appear from nothing, not just as a single celled organism but instead posessing ultimate power to manipulate all time and space. So basically conditions can't foster spontaneous generation of life, but at the same time can, just so long as a heavy dose of special pleading is injected in to the equation.....

Knowing that scripture is God’s word is something that is deductively known; deduction does not rely upon demonstration.

What a load of toilet. Deductions only serve to validate the quack of the brainwashed with you

Deduction does not require demonstration. Study up.

Please, read a critical thinking textbook and then come back and apologise for being so painfully wrong. Deductive soundness requires something to be truthful, and truth is not relative. There is no such thing as a deduction that proves god, hence critical thinking texts are rammed with this subject matter, amongst others. You are mad.

I did not appeal to my senses like you did. I appealed to an axiomatic truth within my conceptual scheme. You are not allowed to do this because your conceptual scheme does not allow for the existence of God.

Farting sounds. And please, drop the endless (sic) bollocks. Most of us don't spend hours proof reading this forum shit, we're not so pedantic as to pick up on every typo in the world. I'm more concerned with the substance of an argument rather than the spelling contained within. Please, if you're going to be a fundy lune, at least try and minimise the prick emissions.