Clickbank Products

Was Jesus invented through ancient myths?

THINK THIS ARGUMENT WORKS? WELL..NOT REALLY!!

Where in the World?

PROOF OF THE REAL MOUNT SINAI IN ARABIA!

The Bible bends all natural laws and rules because it is a supernatural book.
It cannot POSSIBLY be understood by a natural mind focused upon natural understanding. That is what Nicodemus discovered when he came to Christ trying to understand, with a natural mind, supernatural events and teachings.

Because scientists being naturally skeptical, have minds trapped in the box of the five physical senses they cannot focus therefore on the supernatural aspects to understand the biblical 'Birdseye view' of God, who sees things from OUTSIDE time and space, the box that we as finite are limited within .

There was a reason why Jesus said you must be born again. It is a SPIRITUAL rebirth [Both of Mind and Spirit] that is needed to release the hidden evidence of things we cannot witness from inside this physical 'BOX' universe.

I KNOW from personal experience that the Bible is true but I cannot convince you, you must find the truth yourself. THAT'S HOW LIFE WORKS!

Spend less time developing your skeptical natural mind and THAT'S WHAT YOUR DOING, and more time focusing on what Christ taught and you will discover as I have, the truth. You can only interpret the Universe through the shaded lens of your own understanding!
There was an error in this gadget

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Part 2 - The Doorway of Proving what we hope for :The Law of Logic !

I understand very clearly that Atheists and Agnostics look at this proof of God as 'Circular Reasoning', using the Bible to prove God exists. BUT let's get real here for a moment, this is exactly how our courts deal in evidence, they allow this form of proof along with others into evidence to prove guilt or innocence.

    Foundation Evidence

  1. For any witness to be allowed to testify, the side presenting the witness must lay what is known as foundation. To establish foundation, the witness must show he or she has some knowledge material to the case, be it an eyewitness account of what happened or expert testimony to help the jury. If foundation cannot be established, the witness cannot testify.  
  2. (The Bible is filled with the Foundations of the Evidence to prove that God exists. A simple reading of the New Testament books can end this debate once and for all, the testimony of the Apostles demonstrate the Life of Christ, his words and his actions.)

    Evidence of Relevance

  3. Any evidence presented must be relevant to the case at issue, otherwise it is not admissible. Say that the defendant is a known adulterer, for example, and a witness testifies to that fact. The defendant, however, is charged with possession of marijuana. Information about his infidelity to his wife is not admissible because it is not relevant to what he is currently on trial for, possession of marijuana.
  4. (The case at issue is God, Jesus, and Creation, so THE BEST source of Relevant Evidence concerning anything biblical is....you guessed it The Bible. This is well known to Atheist's even though they deny it to your face, but nonetheless a FACT!) 

    Hearsay Evidence

  5. Perhaps the most important rule of evidence is the rule against hearsay. Hearsay is any out-of-court statement, spoken or otherwise, offered to prove the truth of something asserted in court. If the statement is made out of court, as a general rule it is not admissible. If Joe tells Mark he saw Lucy steal a DVD, Joe has to be in court to testify. Mark cannot testify as to what Joe told him, as that is an out-of-court statement offered to prove Lucy took the DVD, and that is hearsay.
  6. (Whenever an Atheist tells you that the Bible is 'Hearsay Evidence' doesn't understand what 'Hearsay Evidence' is, the Bible is the evidence that is in court to prove the idea we must understand, the 'Hearsay' is ALL EXTERNAL NONSENSE surrounding the Bible called 'Disinformation', this is the real Hearsay from those without understanding about God! )

    Hearsay Exceptions

  7. While hearsay seems pretty straightforward, there are numerous exceptions that allow it to come in. Statements made by the defendant, statements made for medical help, statements made on a deathbed, and excited utterances are all admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule. There are nearly 30 exceptions to the hearsay rule.
  8. Trial hearsay: Objections & exceptions

    `Excited utterance' exception to hearsay rule. (Nursing Law Case of the Month).: An article from: Nursing Law's Regan Report

    The Hearsay Handbook - The Hearsay Rule and its 40 Exceptions

    The Hearsay Rule

    Trial Hearsay: Objections and Exceptions

    Fundamentals of Litigation: Evidence and Discovery (Certified Paralegal Course)

    ('Hearsay' that would be allowed is evidence from external sources that validate the biblical sources, Archeology, Science of every type, Geography, Historical settings, Outside Contextual sources like other books, tablets, scrolls within the same time-frame of the Bible that Aline with its time-lines. The Dead Sea scrolls prove that the Old Testament Books NEVER CHANGED over thousands of years. )  

    The Dead Sea Scrolls - Revised Edition: A New Translation

    The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, rev. ed

    The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English

    The Complete World of the Dead Sea Scrolls

    The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered: The First Complete Translation and Interpretation of 50 Key Documents withheld for Over 35 Years

    Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Reader From the Biblical Archaeology ReviewUnderstanding the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Reader From the Biblical Archaeology Review

    Evidence of Expert Testimony

  9. In situations where specialized or scientific knowledge may help the jury make its determination, an expert may testify about such knowledge. Experts are not actual witnesses to the crime, but they can offer opinions any information within their area of expertise that may help the jury. Experts in criminal trials testify about everything from ballistics and DNA evidence, to investigation procedures and company policies. Experts must be qualified and are only allowed to testify about their area of expertise.

(When it comes to expert Testimony concerning the Bible it comes from Scientists, Archaeologists, Jewish, Roman, Babylonian, and various other peoples of the Bibles Background of experts, Contextual experts, Document experts, experts in Poetry, Literature, and Apocalyptic literature! )
 
 
 












  
Laws of nature  

 Laws of nature are of two basic forms:







(1) a law is universal if it states that some conditions, so far as are known, invariably are found together with certain other conditions; and 

(2) a law is probabilistic if it affirms that, on the average, a stated fraction of cases displaying a given condition will display a certain other condition as well. In either case, a law may be valid even though…

One of the primary principles of logic :

is the law of (non-) contradiction.
Basically it states that no statement (proposition, assertion, etc.) can be both true and not true–false-

The second primary law of logic:
 
is the principle of excluded middle.
The law of (non-)contradiction simply states that A cannot equal or be non-A

The third primary law of logic :
 
is called the law of identity.
It states that A=A or that “if any statement is true, then it is true

The fourth primary law of logic:
 
is the law of logical or rational inference

These four primary laws of logic are vital–essential–to all coherent or intelligible discussions or arguments.

As I hope is evident, one cannot–in any intelligent sense–not use them! I have witnessed many times evolutionists NOT using good Logic as well as Christians!

This argument is adapted from the Transcendental Argument championed by Greg Bahnsen

How does a Christian account for the laws of logic?

The Christian worldview states that God is absolute and the standard of truth from God is absolute.

Therefore, the absolute laws of logic exist because they reflect the nature of an absolute God.

God did not create the laws of logic.

They were not brought into existence, since they reflect God’s thinking.

Since God is eternal, the laws of logic are too.

Man, being made in God’s image, is capable of discovering these laws of logic.

He does not invent them.

Therefore, the Christian can account for the existence of the laws of logic by acknowledging they originate from God and that Man is only discovering them.

Nevertheless, the atheist might say this answer is too simplistic and too convenient.  It might be, but at least the Christian worldview can account for the existence of logic itself.

Examples of the laws of logic:

Law of Identity:

Something is what it is.

Something that exists has a specific nature.

Law of Non-Contradiction:

Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time, in the same way, and in the same sense.

Law of Excluded Middle:

a statement is either true or false.

Thus, the statement, “A statement is either true or false,” is either true or false.

How does the atheist account for the laws of logic?

If the atheist states that the laws of logic are conventions (mutually agreed upon conclusions), then the laws of logic are not absolute because they are subject to a “vote.”

The laws of logic are not dependent upon different peoples’ minds, since people are all different in their thoughts on every subject.

Therefore, Logic cannot be born of human thinking, since human thinking is often contradictory.

If the atheist states that the laws of logic are derived through observing natural principles found in nature, then he is confusing the mind with the universe, the two are not the same thing.

We discover laws of physics by observing and analyzing the behavior of things around us.

The laws of logic are not the result of observable behavior of object or actions.

For example, in nature we do not see something that is both itself and not itself at the same time.

Why?

Because we can only observe a phenomena that exists, not one that does not exist.  If something is not itself, then it doesn’t exist.

How then can the property of that non-existent thing be observed?

It cannot.

Therefore, we are not discovering a law of logic by observation, but by thought.

Or, where in nature do we observe that something cannot bring itself into existence if it does not already exist?

You cannot make an observation about how something does not occur if it does not exist.

You would be, in essence, observing nothing at all, and how can any laws of logic be applied to, or derived from, observing nothing at all?

The laws of logic are conceptual realities.

They only exist in the mind, and they do not describe the physical behavior of things because behavior is action, and laws of logic are not descriptions of action, but of truth.

In other words, laws of logic are not actions.

They are statements about conceptual patterns of thought.

Though one could say that a law of physics (i.e., the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence) is a statement which is conceptual, it is a statement that describes actual physical and observable behavior.

But, logical absolutes are not observable and do not describe behavior or actions of things, since they reside completely in the mind.

We do not observe the laws of logic occurring in matter.

You don’t watch an object NOT bring itself into existence if it doesn’t exist.

Therefore, no law of logic can be observed by watching nothing.

If the atheist appeals to the scientific method to explain the laws of logic, then he is using circular argumentation because the scientific method is dependent upon logic; that is, reasoned thought applied to observations.

If logic is not absolute, then no logical arguments for or against the existence of God can be raised, and the atheist has nothing to work with.

If logic is not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything.

Atheists will use logic to try and disprove God’s existence, but in so doing they are assuming absolute laws of logic and borrowing from the Christian worldview.

The Christian worldview maintains that the laws of logic are absolute because they come from God, who is Himself absolute.

But the atheist worldview does not have an absolute God.

So, we ask, “How can absolute, conceptual, abstract laws be derived from a universe of matter, energy, and motion?”

In other words, “How can an atheist with a naturalistic presupposition account for the existence of logical absolutes when logical absolutes are conceptual by nature and not physical, energy, or motion?”


Belief illustrated

The process of believing is illustrated in the first figure below. Four thresholds are given, from 50% to 95% probability. The 50% threshold is the lowest reasonable one, of course, for all lower probabilities point more toward disbelief. If I set my threshold of belief at 50%, I will believe any proposition whose evidence provides a probability greater than 50%. The arrow from just above the 50% level to the 100% level represents the amount by which the probability must be increased from its actual value to its accepted value of 100% by the act of believing.
The threshold of 50% is of course is very casual.
 
It means that I will believe nearly anything presented to me. I can be much more selective if I raise the threshold to, say, 90% probability. I will then believe only propositions whose chances of being false are <10%. If I wish to be more stringent still, I can raise my personal threshold to 95% or greater. If I choose to be a real stickler, I may require 98–99% in order to believe. (By the way, science generally requires a probability of 95% to accept an idea as being true.)

Suppose I want to be a purist, and I decide to demand 100% probability. (I’m from Missouri—show me!) What happens to me then? I get into horrible philosophical/mathematical disputes about whether anything can be proven absolutely. Since we don’t have the opportunity to deal with such things in a short essay like this, we will avoid the question by not considering true absolutes.

Prob_b1

Proof

Prob_b2

Now we turn from belief to “proof.” It’s not as big a step as you might imagine, because “proof,” at least in the legal sense, is just a form of belief. Because the law has so permeated modern American life, we begin discussing proof from the legal standpoint.

Legal aspects of “proof”
A legal proceeding first decides on its threshold of belief (which it calls “standard of proof”), then assembles and evaluates evidence for the accusation. If the evidence exceeds the standard of proof, the legal body accepts the accusation and convicts the defendant. (It believes the proposition that he is guilty.)

In so doing, the legal body is simply choosing to raise its probability from its demonstrated (actual) value to 100% . Has the legal body proven the defendant guilty in our absolute sense of the word? No. They have only chosen to believe that he is guilty (“considered” him guilty). Unfortunately, the law uses the word “prove” or “convict” for all these decisions, regardless of threshold probability. This causes great confusion until the process is diagrammed.


The five “standards of proof” (thresholds of belief) found in the law are shown in the lower figure below. “Preponderance of the evidence” is the lowest, at 50% probability. It is used in most civil proceedings, and requires only that the plaintiff (accuser) outprove the defendant. Probabilities of 51% vs 49% produce the same “guilty” verdict as 99% vs 1%.


The second standard of proof is “clear and convincing.” It is also used in civil proceedings (equity cases), but less frequently than “preponderance of the evidence.” Its threshold probability lies somewhere between 50% and 90%. For simplicity, I have set it at 75% in the figure.


The third standard of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” It is the common standard of criminal proceedings, and requires roughly that “all reasonable doubt about guilt of the accused be removed from the mind of the ordinary person.” This standard is generally considered to correspond to a probability of at least 90% (although some lawyers would claim ≥95%). For convenience, I have used 90% in the figure.


The fourth standard of proof is “to a moral certainty.” It is also used in criminal proceedings, and requires jurors to be “confident enough about the conclusion to rely on it in matters of the greatest personal importance.” Its level of probability falls somewhere between “beyond a reasonable doubt” and “certainty”. I have represented it here as 95%. Sometimes these last two standards are lumped together, as in “beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty.” To my mind, this further confuses the uninformed observer of the legal process. “To a moral certainty” means exactly the same. (Note the unfortunate use of “certainty” with probabilities of <100% here.)


The fifth standard of proof is “absolute certainty.” Although the law recognizes this standard of proof, it explicitly never requires it, because the law considers absolutism unworkable (i.e., no criminal would be convicted if 100% proof were required). FROM:  HERE!





Popular Posts

About Me

My photo

Before you look at the links below know this about me, I do not know everything about anything, I know only what God has revealed to me.

Proving God exists CANNOT be done for the person who is not open to hearing and seeing the evidence as God sees it. Faith is the KEY to releasing all the evidence contained in creation, in man's heart and his mind. Without FAITH no one can ever please God so to throw away faith as unimportant destroys our receptivity to the evidence!

I was a hypocrite, a sinner and a fool, sometimes even as a believer but as long as God is in control I'm forgiven and healed of every form of human shortcoming. Nothing can stand before the evidence contained in Faith.....NOTHING!


LEARN MORE ABOUT ME AND MY MINISTRY HERE!

http://hopefromdispair.blogspot.com/

http://skepticalofskepticism.blogspot.com/

http://truthinprophecy.blogspot.com/

http://affiliatesgoldenchest.blogspot.com/

http://endwashingtonwaste.blogspot.com/

http://alltheusefulidiots.blogspot.com/
WebRep
Overall rating
 

It Stands Unrefuted by Scientists ANYWHERE!


The following reports are in one of three formats. To view the ones in PDF format, use
Adobe Acrobat Reader. To view the ones in RTF format, you may use MS Word.

Reports Dealing with Radiohalos

  1. Gentry, R.V. 1968. "Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant Radioactive Halos." Science 160, 1228. HTML PDF
  2. Gentry, R.V. 1970. "Giant Radioactive Halos: Indicators of Unknown Alpha-Radioactivity?" Science 169, 670. HTML PDF
  3. Gentry, R.V. 1971. "Radiohalos: Some Unique Pb Isotope Ratios and Unknown Alpha Radioactivity." Science 173, 727. PDF
  4. Gentry, R.V. 1973. "Radioactive Halos." Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23, 347. PDF
  5. Gentry, R.V. 1974. "Radiohalos in Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Science 184, 62. HTML PDF
  6. Gentry, R.V. 1975. Response to J.H. Fremlin's Comments on "Spectacle Halos." Nature 258, 269.
  7. Gentry, R.V. 1977. "Mystery of the Radiohalos." Research Communications NETWORK, Breakthrough Report, February 10, 1977. HTML PDF
  8. Gentry, R.V. 1978a. "Are Any Unusual Radiohalos Evidence for SHE?" International Symposium on Superheavy Elements, Lubbock, Texas. New York: Pergamon Press. PDF
  9. Gentry, R.V. 1978b. "Implications on Unknown Radioactivity of Giant and Dwarf Haloes in Scandinavian Rocks." Nature 274, 457. HTML PDF
  10. Gentry, R.V. 1978c. "Reinvestigation of the α Activity of Conway Granite." Nature 273, 217. HTML PDF
  11. Gentry, R.V. 1979. "Time: Measured Responses." EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 60, 474. PDF RTF
  12. Gentry, R.V. 1980. "Polonium Halos." EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 61, 514. HTML PDF
  13. Gentry, R.V. 1982. Letters. Physics Today 35, No. 10, 13.
  14. Gentry, R.V. 1983a. Letters. Physics Today 36, No. 4, 3.
  15. Gentry, R.V. 1983b. Letters. Physics Today 36, No. 11, 124.
  16. Gentry, R.V. 1984a. "Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science 1, 38. HTML PDF
  17. Gentry, R.V. 1984c. Letters. Physics Today 37, No. 4, 108.
  18. Gentry, R.V. 1984d. Letters. Physics Today 37, No. 12, 92.
  19. Gentry, R.V. 1987a. "Radioactive Halos: Implications for Creation." Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Vol. II, 89. HTML
  20. Gentry, R.V. 1998. "Fingerprints of Creation." Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12, 287. HTML
  21. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1973. "Ion Microprobe Confirmation of Pb Isotope Ratios and Search for Isomer Precursors in Polonium Radiohalos." Nature 244, 282. HTML PDF
  22. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1974. "'Spectacle' Array of Po-210 Halo Radiocentres in Biotite: A Nuclear Geophysical Enigma." Nature 252, 564. HTML PDF
  23. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1976a. "Radiohalos and Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification." Science 194, 315. HTML PDF

Reports Dealing with Helium and Lead Retention in Zircons

  1. Gentry, R.V. 1984b. "Lead Retention in Zircons" (Technical Comment). Science 223, 835.
  2. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1982a. "Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment." Science 216, 296. HTML PDF
  3. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1982b. "Differential Helium Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment." Geophysical Research Letters 9, 1129. HTML PDF

Reports Dealing with Astronomy and Cosmology

  1. Gentry, R. V. 1997. "A New Redshift Interpretation." Modern Physics Letters A, Vol. 12, No. 37, 2919. (This paper was also posted in 1998 on the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: astro-ph/9806280.) HTML PDF
  2. Gentry, R. V. 1998. "The Genuine Cosmic Rosetta." This paper was posted on what was then the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: gr-gc/9806061. HTML PDF
  3. Gentry, R. V. 1998. "The New Redshift Interpretation Affirmed." This paper was posted on what was then the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: physics/9810051. HTML PDF
  4. Gentry, R. V. 2003. "Discovery of a Major Contradiction in Big Bang Cosmology Points to the New Cosmic Center Universe Model." CERN Preprint, Ext-2003-021. HTML PDF
  5. Gentry, R. V. 2003. "New Cosmic Center Universe Model Matches Eight of Big Bang's Major Predictions Without the F-L Paradigm." CERN Preprint, Ext-2003-022. PDF
  6. Gentry, R. V. 2004. "Collapse of Big Bang Cosmology and the Emergence of the New Cosmic Center Model of the Universe." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 56, 4. HTML PDF

The first three astronomy and cosmology papers may also be obtained by going to the the web sites of either Los Alamos National Laboratory or arXiv.org. arXiv.org is currently adminstered by Cornell University.

NOTE: For more information about the Big Bang's fatal flaws and "The Great 21st Century Scientific Watergate," please check out our sister site, www.orionfdn.org.

1987 Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences

  • Our open letter of March 24, 1987, to Dr. Frank Press, president of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Press claimed that "evidence for creationism" has been scientifically invalidated, though he well knew this has not been the case for the polonium-halo evidence. Our letter once again requests him and other evolutionists to publicly explain how the polonium-halo evidence for creation has indeed been invalidated, this time on April 13 at the University of Tennessee. We suggest that Dr. Stephen Gould be the first one to speak on behalf of the academy, given his strong language denouncing the term, "creation science." HTML GIF

  • Our Knoxville Sentinel ad on April 12, 1987, announcing our presentation on the evening of the 13th at the University of Tennessee. Included in the ad was a copy of the above open letter to Dr. Press. HTML GIF

  • A press release from the Society for Creation Science, announcing the reading of Dr. Press's written reply that evening, April 13, 1987, at the University of Tennessee. HTML GIF

Year 2000 Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences
  • Our letter of March 22, 2000, to Dr. Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Alberts claimed that evidence for special creation has been experimentally falsified.

  • This letter requests the Academy to publicly explain at Wichita State University on March 30, 2000, why it has chosen to reject the published evidence for the Genesis creation, evidence which after more than twenty-five years still stands unrefuted in the open scientific literature. HTML

Did you know that scientific evidence abounds to support the biblical accounts of creation and the flood?

Were you aware that reports outlining this evidence passed peer review, and were published in the open scientific literature?

Have you heard that, decades later, this evidence still stands unrefuted by the scientific community?






Watch a real debate about God right here!

Professors Richard Dawkins and John Lennox go head-to-head once again for another remarkable match of intellect.
This time, the same two Oxford Professors who debated in Birmingham's 'God Delusion' Debate are at it again on their home turf at the site of the famed 1860 Evolution debate between Huxley and Wilberforce.