SkipCaptcha
731
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 5:
Line 5: − 3) The God of the Bible exists.+ − 4) The Bible is the Word of God.+ − +
cleanup
2) The sky is blue (unless you live in England),
2) The sky is blue (unless you live in England),
3) If A = B, then A + C = B + C.
3) If A = B, then A + C = B + C.
4) The God of the Bible exists.
5) The Bible is the Word of God.
With these axioms, one can do a lot of theology and arrive at a lot of knowledge.
With these axioms, one can do a lot of theology and arrive at a lot of knowledge.
Aside from the above, it is to be noted that the Bible offers fulfilled prophecy as evidence that it is the Word of God (e.g., in Isaiah 40 and following chapters, here and there). Also, the Bible indicates that creation should convince one that God exists. But I do not say that the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true (circular reasoning). I say that axioms 3 and 4 above are self-evident and that every man owns the problem of affirming them or denying them for himself at his own peril. You must directly perceive that God exists (as, for illustration, Paul indicates in Acts 17). You must read the Bible and affirm for yourself that it is the Word of God -- that is your homework, not mine for you.
Aside from the above, it is to be noted that the Bible offers fulfilled prophecy as evidence that it is the Word of God (e.g., in Isaiah 40 and following chapters, here and there). Also, the Bible indicates that creation should convince one that God exists. But I do not say that the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true (circular reasoning). I say that axioms 4 and 5 above are self-evident and that every man owns the problem of affirming them or denying them for himself at his own peril. You must directly perceive that God exists (as, for illustration, Paul indicates in Acts 17). You must read the Bible and affirm for yourself that it is the Word of God -- that is your homework, not mine for you.
Without axioms, one cannot do logic, for logic depends upon starting with givens; and if the givens are not self-evident, ultimately logic cannot lead to certain truth. Why do I affirm proposition A?
Without axioms, one cannot do logic, for logic depends upon starting with givens; and if the givens are not self-evident, ultimately logic cannot lead to certain truth. Why do I affirm proposition A?