Comment: ....

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I know of mathematical proof (see in situ)

....

RE:"I know of mathematical proof by induction and contradiction"

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. You know of proof of what?

RE:"but I see no merit in prior assumptions as it is the very point we are debating."

The point was not that there was merit in prior assumptions, the point was that everyone has prior assumptions even when they don't think they do. It's sort of pointing out a double standard at a worldview level, where atheists assume their worldview is correct by default and think theists are the only ones with worldview presuppositions. To let the Bible speak for itself is not necessarily a prior assumption, just as letting the accused testify on their own behalf does not presume that they are innocent.

RE: "If you can post at the top of the page, the reasoning step by step to prove the bible by such a method without involving faith, I would be happy to address it."

Which method are you talking about? I think you are fooling yourself if you think you don't use faith everyday. Even an understanding of mathematics involves faith that it will not deviate, otherwise every possible calculation would have to have been made and proven, and there will never be enough time to make every possible calculation let alone prove them.

RE: "If I stated that the events of Lord of the Rings were true, then can you not by the same methods prove it is true? It claims the events happened in its text, so can we trust it?"

If you are talking about the presuppositional apologetics approach, I would say you've missed the point. I made two unrelated points. The presuppositional thing points out the myth of neutrality, while the point about letting the text speak for itself is merely a matter of charity and weighing the evidence in an impartial manner: http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html
In your scenario, I would notice that you calling the events of "Lord of the rings" true would contradict the testimony and evidence of Tolkien, then I would have to weigh the evidence on both sides, which might include looking at the text itself to see if it is consistent with reality. But "Lord of the Rings" is in no way comparable to the Bible which purports to be eyewitness accounts corresponding to verifiable events in history. Read Greenleafs assessment I linked earlier. Even though Greenleafs book is like 500 pages, most of that is just charts, and the actual text is very brief. He explains why something like the book of Mormon on golden plates isn't comparable to the Bible as legal evidence, and you may learn more about why Tolkiens novels wouldn't compare either(eg. the fact the the Bible contains multiple sources/books testifying of the same events which are also referenced in other sources).

RE:"The point is it is not up to you to disprove it but for me to offer positive proof of my statement."

It depends on who is making claims. If you make the claim that there is no evidence for God, it's up to you to show that there is no evidence for God. If you are calling yourself agnostic, you might as well be an agnostic all the way and say you don't know if evidence for God exists, or that you personally haven't seen something that would persuade you, rather than claiming that no evidence or proof for God exists.

RE:" Addressing your earlier post about atheists. The term is a misnomer, and the actual belief system of most atheist in my experience is agnostic. We do not state categorically that there cannot be a supernatural god, only that there is no positive evidence yet for such a being. Hope that clears things up."

I think some people have sort of redefined the term from its classical use because they realize that it's unsupportable. But typically people who call themselves atheists do not act like agnostics. They make claims like "There is no God, it's just your imagination, People who believe in God are delusional", I never hear them say "There might be a God, People who believe in God might be delusional, but we just can't know for certain". Typically it's only when they are challenged that they fall back on agnosticism.