A Presuppositional Bible Study Approach

[GWH]

Everyone has a bias based on how their life has formed their worldview. That's the point of presuppositional apologetics. People cannot evaluate anything outside of their worldview unless they recognize it. Most don't.

Yes, everyone is biased, and mine is indicated by the following statements:

The second type of answer is that life is NOT a farce—that existence has meaning, and how one believes and behaves does matter for some non-arbitrary reason (the UMI/God, cf. Rom. 1:20). This answer seems more appealing and almost logically imperative, although some people appear to prefer the paths of nihilism and KOTH (cf. Matt. 13:14-15).

A person who believes cosmaterialism, moral nihilism and that life’s struggles are meaningless frequently tends to seek escape even via suicide, whether by one act or by a downward spiral of self-destructive behavior. Until/unless this option were somehow proven beyond doubt, moralism or viewing life as meaningful seems to be the better belief.

The adherents of naturalism posit that humans instinctively accept the validity of morality or of acting in accordance with a reciprocity principle or the “golden rule” (do unto others as you would have them do unto you, cf. Matt. 7:12), and they are satisfied with whatever meaning can be derived from this earthly existence. The problem with this view is that humanity has also had a proclivity toward evil throughout history, so there is no basis for saying the negative force toward others is not equally valid and for mandating a universal golden rule or moral imperative. Logically, all it can offer is a “pyrite suggestion”. Morally, it merely continues KOTH (“might makes right”).

The atheist opinion indicates that the existence of a supernatural Deity is not proven, although it is not disproved either, which means that the evidence needs to be evaluated honestly. Atheists assert that one cannot prove a negative, so the burden is on theists to prove God exists. However, this assertion assumes God is not the positive “I AM” (see axiomatic belief #1). A neutral statement about ultimate reality is the following: “It is logical to remain open to believing all credible possibilities (those which present sufficient evidence) and to hope the most desirable rational possibility is true.”

 

[rewriter]

Yes, everyone is biased, and mine is indicated by the following statements:

The second type of answer is that life is NOT a farce—that existence has meaning, and how one believes and behaves does matter for some non-arbitrary reason (the UMI/God, cf. Rom. 1:20). This answer seems more appealing and almost logically imperative, although some people appear to prefer the paths of nihilism and KOTH (cf. Matt. 13:14-15).

A person who believes cosmaterialism, moral nihilism and that life’s struggles are meaningless frequently tends to seek escape even via suicide, whether by one act or by a downward spiral of self-destructive behavior. Until/unless this option were somehow proven beyond doubt, moralism or viewing life as meaningful seems to be the better belief.

The adherents of naturalism posit that humans instinctively accept the validity of morality or of acting in accordance with a reciprocity principle or the “golden rule” (do unto others as you would have them do unto you, cf. Matt. 7:12), and they are satisfied with whatever meaning can be derived from this earthly existence. The problem with this view is that humanity has also had a proclivity toward evil throughout history, so there is no basis for saying the negative force toward others is not equally valid and for mandating a universal golden rule or moral imperative. Logically, all it can offer is a “pyrite suggestion”. Morally, it merely continues KOTH (“might makes right”).

The atheist opinion indicates that the existence of a supernatural Deity is not proven, although it is not disproved either, which means that the evidence needs to be evaluated honestly. Atheists assert that one cannot prove a negative, so the burden is on theists to prove God exists. However, this assertion assumes God is not the positive “I AM” (see axiomatic belief #1). A neutral statement about ultimate reality is the following: “It is logical to remain open to believing all credible possibilities (those which present sufficient evidence) and to hope the most desirable rational possibility is true.”

Actually, it is the agnostic who maintains that the existence of a deity is not proven nor disproven. The atheist is often willing to make the positive statement that God does not exist, but rather that all claims God's existence, or any god's, not just the Judeo-Christian one is wishful thinking

 

[rewriter]

Everyone has a bias based on how their life has formed their worldview. That's the point of presuppositional apologetics. People cannot evaluate anything outside of their worldview unless they recognize it. Most don't.

I fully agree with this. Thus, the proper understanding of 2 Timothy 3:16 and the term "theopneustos" is an assumption. The term is not known prior to Paul's writing on the epistle, which raises the question, at least for me, why did he invent the term, especially when there was a different, widely accepted term, remembered to this day, "enthused" or "god filled".

 

[GWH]

Yes, everyone is biased, and mine is indicated by the following statements:

The second type of answer is that life is NOT a farce—that existence has meaning, and how one believes and behaves does matter for some non-arbitrary reason (the UMI/God, cf. Rom. 1:20). This answer seems more appealing and almost logically imperative, although some people appear to prefer the paths of nihilism and KOTH (cf. Matt. 13:14-15).

A person who believes cosmaterialism, moral nihilism and that life’s struggles are meaningless frequently tends to seek escape even via suicide, whether by one act or by a downward spiral of self-destructive behavior. Until/unless this option were somehow proven beyond doubt, moralism or viewing life as meaningful seems to be the better belief.

The adherents of naturalism posit that humans instinctively accept the validity of morality or of acting in accordance with a reciprocity principle or the “golden rule” (do unto others as you would have them do unto you, cf. Matt. 7:12), and they are satisfied with whatever meaning can be derived from this earthly existence. The problem with this view is that humanity has also had a proclivity toward evil throughout history, so there is no basis for saying the negative force toward others is not equally valid and for mandating a universal golden rule or moral imperative. Logically, all it can offer is a “pyrite suggestion”. Morally, it merely continues KOTH (“might makes right”).

The atheist opinion indicates that the existence of a supernatural Deity is not proven, although it is not disproved either, which means that the evidence needs to be evaluated honestly. Atheists assert that one cannot prove a negative, so the burden is on theists to prove God exists. However, this assertion assumes God is not the positive “I AM” (see axiomatic belief #1). A neutral statement about ultimate reality is the following: “It is logical to remain open to believing all credible possibilities (those which present sufficient evidence) and to hope the most desirable rational possibility is true.”

I see your bias is boring.

 

[GWH]

Actually, it is the agnostic who maintains that the existence of a deity is not proven nor disproven. The atheist is often willing to make the positive statement that God does not exist, but rather that all claims God's existence, or any god's, not just the Judeo-Christian one is wishful thinking

Yes, we all walk/operate by faith in various evidence rather than by proof or infallible knowledge.
Yes, the atheist bias is to deny the existence of all gods including the NT God.
The agnostic who chooses not to believe in God shows his atheist bias.

The evidence cited by Christians is not proof, but because their hope and belief are based on evidence and logic, it is rational rather than “blind”, and it is made even more intellectually reasonable or defensible by acknowledging ways God would be disproved, which include the following:

1. If atheists or anti-Christians created eternal life, because the Bible teaches that eternal life is God’s gift only to believers in Him (John 3:16).

2. If the body of Jesus of Nazareth were discovered in a tomb, because Paul stated that if Christ is not resurrected, then faith is useless (1Cor. 15:14).

3. If it were proven that moral free will (MFW) is an illusion, because the premise of biblical morality is that human souls are accountable (Deut. 30:19-20).

4. If human-like beings on another planet had no salvation history involving God and Christ, because the Bible teaches that God is Lord of all (Phil. 2:9-11). (Caveat: If they are included in the Great Commission, their history would be like the OT.)

5. If God could prove His existence to people without abrogating free will (cf. 2Cor. 5:7), but apparently God performs miracles only as necessary to accomplish His plan of salvation (see Part VI).

6. If it were proved that the universe is not created, because resurrection or re-creation presupposes creation and thus a Creator (Acts 17:24-31).

Thus, both theism and atheism are unproven opinions or opposite subjective conclusions requiring faith concerning ultimate reality. However, the NT teaches there will come a time—at the resurrection or eschaton—when the proof atheists demand will be provided, and KOTH will end. At that time theism will be revealed as the right or true ideology as souls reap the opposite destinies of heaven and hell in accordance with their moral choices, beginning with their decision whether to love or to disregard God (cf. Matt. 7:24-27) .

 

[rewriter]

Yes, we all walk/operate by faith in various evidence rather than by proof or infallible knowledge.
Yes, the atheist bias is to deny the existence of all gods including the NT God.
The agnostic who chooses not to believe in God shows his atheist bias.

The evidence cited by Christians is not proof, but because their hope and belief are based on evidence and logic, it is rational rather than “blind”, and it is made even more intellectually reasonable or defensible by acknowledging ways God would be disproved, which include the following:

1. If atheists or anti-Christians created eternal life, because the Bible teaches that eternal life is God’s gift only to believers in Him (John 3:16).

2. If the body of Jesus of Nazareth were discovered in a tomb, because Paul stated that if Christ is not resurrected, then faith is useless (1Cor. 15:14).

3. If it were proven that moral free will (MFW) is an illusion, because the premise of biblical morality is that human souls are accountable (Deut. 30:19-20).

4. If human-like beings on another planet had no salvation history involving God and Christ, because the Bible teaches that God is Lord of all (Phil. 2:9-11). (Caveat: If they are included in the Great Commission, their history would be like the OT.)

5. If God could prove His existence to people without abrogating free will (cf. 2Cor. 5:7), but apparently God performs miracles only as necessary to accomplish His plan of salvation (see Part VI).

6. If it were proved that the universe is not created, because resurrection or re-creation presupposes creation and thus a Creator (Acts 17:24-31).

Thus, both theism and atheism are unproven opinions or opposite subjective conclusions requiring faith concerning ultimate reality. However, the NT teaches there will come a time—at the resurrection or eschaton—when the proof atheists demand will be provided, and KOTH will end. At that time theism will be revealed as the right or true ideology as souls reap the opposite destinies of heaven and hell in accordance with their moral choices, beginning with their decision whether to love or to disregard God (cf. Matt. 7:24-27) .

You show presuppositions in your list of evidence. The concept of eternal life existed well before the Bible was written so it is unclear who created it. Paul never claims that Jesus's tomb was empty. The first century concept of resurrection merely meant that the deceased person was accepted into heaven. People such as Augustus and Tiberius, along with several others, were reported as resurrected. Further, there were several early Christian legends about bodies either in or near the tomb. One states that the body of one the thieves crucified beside Jesus was in the tomb in place of Jesus's, and there are many other such legends. Paul also tells us in Romans 1:20 that the evidence of God's existence available to all independent of the Bible.

As for agnostics, an honest agnostic is actively looking for sufficient evidence for the existence or non-existence of God, they simply do not have sufficient evidence to land on either side. Such a position can be more honest than a believer who fabricates evidence to support their belief. But I would maintain that recent experimental science implies that a supreme being is not only plausible but probable. The issue is that far too many are ignorant of this science, including believers.