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


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., 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. 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. 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., 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 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.



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” 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 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!