(July 3, 2015 at 3:27 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:(July 3, 2015 at 3:18 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Oh...I've started three threads using an evidential approach...
The approach doesn't matter, if you where a true evidential apologist you would be arguing gods existence based on evidence that a believer and a non believer both agree on, so all presupposition is removed. What your doing is presenting stuff that you think is "evidence" for a god you already presuppose exists.
(July 3, 2015 at 3:30 pm)Neimenovic Wrote:(July 3, 2015 at 3:18 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Oh...I've started three threads using an evidential approach...
.....and giving ZERO evidence.
Incorrectomundo, gentlemen.
In the "Minimal Fact Approach" thread, I am arguing for the resurrection of Jesus on the basis of four facts which the overwhelming majority of ALL NT scholars (believers and skeptics alike) accept as highly probable. The fifth fact is accepted by a simple majority.
That's kinda the whole point. These are not facts with which you may take issue easily as they are most generally conceded as undisputed.
See ya there.
