Splendour, these sentences are exactly the reasons that atheists use the FSM as a rhetorical device. What's more, we KNOW you agree with the principle of the burden of proof because your second favourite book is The Apologetics Of Jesus - a book whose entire purpose is to persuade Christians to own up to the burden of proof! Therefore, Geisler shows that he understands that a non-Christian does NOT have the burden of proof.

Yeah, philosophy tricks a lot of people.

In real life the people that accept responsibility for others (accept burdens) are the real heroes.

There's a limit to the value of freedom you know.

Imagine you have 2 siblings with a little old widowed mother who can't take care of herself. One accepts responsibility for the old mother and one insists on having their own freedom and not taking care of their mother.

Who's the real hero?

You can lie to yourself with a superficial argument.

You can't lie with a real life example.

Splendour, this is the philosophy of a book that YOU have recommended to many people on this forum in repeated posts. Own up to the fact that your admiration for TAOJ and your disdain for the rhetoric of the FSM are in direct conflict.

Let me illustrate with an example.

Dear RGT, I'd like to inform you all that Splendour is secretly a Satanist, who is attempting to undermine trust in Christianity by using weak arguments. You can't prove me wrong, therefore you should all accept it.

TaoJ?

the apologetics of jesus

I did you a service showing you God can be proved by evidence.

But most people don't need the evidence an atheist demands.

They can figure things out using common everyday perception and human psychology.

LMFAO, you've actually not properly understood that book at all have you? I thought it was weird you kept recommending it.

Do you understand that there are different forms of intelligence in this world?

Some people are logical types therefore their mode of thinking is via logic.

Some people are intuitive types therefore their mode of thinking is common sense, perception and psychology.

I belong to the intuitive type.

I lucked out and found 2 logical philosophy people that can show the evidentiary case in The Apologetics of Jesus.

I suggest you read the book again. TAOJ spends little more than a few paragraphs on the 'evidence' for Christianity. In those short paragraphs it gives a brief outline of several well-refuted arguments namely the argument from first cause, the argument from design and moral lawgiver argument. Geisler spends significantly more time trying to refute Hume's argument against miracles, which I'll reproduce the final part of for the amusement of others ITT:

TAOJ is essentially an instruction manual for a particular style of apologetics and a dismissal of the common theists approach to appeal to the virtue of faith. The vast majority of the book outlines the ways in which Jesus accepted the burden of proof by performing miracles etc.

I just gave the book to an unbelieving friend last week and I'm reading other books now.

But there are fideist and evidentialist believers. Always have been.

It's just most people stereotype all believers as fideists and don't know there are also evidentialists.

It all goes back to different types of human minds. Some people's dominant thinking mode is intuitive while others are logical. The more logical types like to assume they're the only rational ones but people like Roger Sperry said logic is the servant of intuition.

She is really becoming disturbed. And disturbing.

She hasn't read most of the books that she quote-mines and/or recommends others read. It's her 67th most annoying characteristic.

Women....who would'a thunk it...

Only women and beta males can know God.

Which means..... I haven't read the book like just about every link i post...