Three irrefutable miracles.

[37818]

Yes exactly! And that's all that need be said in this discussion with 37818. Either Natural Law is the uncaused cause of our physical existence or a deity is. We really have no way of knowing for sure at this stage but I would go for the former as the most likely.

Uncaused Existence is one thing. Natural laws are many, more than uncaused existence and contingent upon there being uncaused existence. Our physical existence our spacetime has what appears to be a known beginning.

[37818]

Quoting bible passages, especially pseudepigraphic ones like 2 Peter that barely made it into the canon, is no argument...or are you counting on the converting power of scripture.

I came across the following:

Source: The Canonicity of Second Peter, B. B. Warfield, Southern Presbyterian Review, Volume 33, Number 1 (January 1881) page 48

The burden of proof would certainly rest on those who denied its canonicity.

© Copyright Original Source

While I fully doubt that this quote is of any interest to you, I cite it here for others.

[shunyadragon]

Uncaused Existence is one thing. Natural laws are many, more than uncaused existence and contingent upon there being uncaused existence.

We do not know how many Natural Laws there are in the ultimate uncaused cause of our physical existence. You cannot equate the human laws and theories with the ultimate Natural Law of our physical existence. It is possible there is only one Natural Law that is the uncaused cause of our physical eYou are proposing an unknown hypothetical to justify your religious agenda.

Our physical existence our spacetime has what appears to be a known beginning.

There is absolutely no objective evidence for anything that 'appears to be a known beginning' as far as the current knowledge of science is concerned.

[shunyadragon]

I came across the following:

Source: The Canonicity of Second Peter, B. B. Warfield, Southern Presbyterian Review, Volume 33, Number 1 (January 1881) page 48

The burden of proof would certainly rest on those who denied its canonicity.

© Copyright Original Source

While I fully doubt that this quote is of any interest to you, I cite it here for others.

This is a religious presupposition to justify a religious agenda and demand proof of the negative. In a less biased perspective in the logic the burden of proof remains with the one making the claim.

[Doug Shaver]

I came across the following:

Source: The Canonicity of Second Peter, B. B. Warfield, Southern Presbyterian Review, Volume 33, Number 1 (January 1881) page 48

The burden of proof would certainly rest on those who denied its canonicity.

© Copyright Original Source

While I fully doubt that this quote is of any interest to you, I cite it here for others.

I don't dispute its canonicity. Warfield seems to have equated canonicity with authenticity. I do not.

[Tassman]

I came across the following:

Source: The Canonicity of Second Peter, B. B. Warfield, Southern Presbyterian Review, Volume 33, Number 1 (January 1881) page 48

The burden of proof would certainly rest on those who denied its canonicity.

© Copyright Original Source

While I fully doubt that this quote is of any interest to you, I cite it here for others.

The existing canon of scripture is undeniable. The "burden of proof" rests with those who claim it is anything more than a human construct.

[37818]

The existing canon of scripture is undeniable. The "burden of proof" rests with those who claim it is anything more than a human construct.

For those who have come to know God through those Holy Scriptures, those scriptures are self authenticating.

[shunyadragon]

For those who have come to know God through those Holy Scriptures, those scriptures are self authenticating.

Begging the Question so severe it bites you in the butt.

[Doug Shaver]

For those who have come to know God through those Holy Scriptures, those scriptures are self authenticating.

That is what Mormons say about their scriptures.

[Tassman]

For those who have come to know God through those Holy Scriptures, those scriptures are self authenticating.

This is circular reasoning, i.e. a logical fallacy..

[JimL]

For those who have come to know God through those Holy Scriptures, those scriptures are self authenticating.

Now prove that the god you've come to know is more than the just the image formed in your mind from reading those scriptures. Had you been born a muslim say, you'd say the same, that you came to know Allah!

[37818]

Now prove that the god you've come to know is more than the just the image formed in your mind from reading those scriptures. Had you been born a muslim say, you'd say the same, that you came to know Allah!

God is knowable even to you. But you do not want to.

Now for starters, prove Muhammad actually knew Allah.

[37818]

This is circular reasoning, i.e. a logical fallacy..

What is the circular argument you claim is being made?

[37818]

That is what Mormons say about their scriptures.

They do not believe the Bible is sufficient. So their additional books are needed.

[shunyadragon]

God is knowable even to you. But you do not want to.

Now for starters, prove Muhammad actually knew Allah.

There is no proof that any claimed Messianic figure or prophet including Jesus Christ knew God in any language.