Ok, so it isn't fair to expect me to think you can do a search, so let me help you out.

I notice you never made a response to this thread:  http://sntjohnny.com/smf/index.php?topic=2552.0

In it I say:

I say the reasonableness of reason requires an explanation as much as anything else does.  If you agree with that, you will pretty much always infer that God- a transcendental yet immanent, non-contingent agent- is the best explanation.

...

Now, in my mind the best explanation for why logic 'works' cannot lie within my own mind.  For one thing, there was a time when I was not.  My existence appears to be wholly contingent.  I see no good reason to think the validity of reason regresses back only as far as my own being.   I believe a final regress is a logical necessity, but if you don't agree with that allow me to settle for a final regress is more probable than an infinite one.  If you don't agree with that, would you at least agree that in the regress chain the validity of reason does not stop with your own mind?  The way is open to conclude that the best explanation for why reason is reasonable is to posit that there is something other than you upon which the principles of logic rest, and I propose that that best explanation is God, other logically conceivable possibilities be d--ned.

and

Logical arguments are put into perspective when we begin to see that whatever we conclude about them, what we observe from reality ought be factored in, and if there is a God, some kind of revelation from him can be rationally expected.  To that end, another way of demonstrating his existence can be inferred.

If, for example, God chose to reveal himself directly in our universe in the flesh, and there were reasonable grounds for believing that this entity making the claim that he was God really was God, that is, the things he does is consonant with his claim, then we could derive our theistic views not from the rare air of abstract arguments but rather from what is observed in reality.

A decent search would reveal that I also make the following argument which is alluded to in the above quotes:

If Jesus really did perform the things he is alleged to have performed and did really rise from the dead as is testified by others and if he really did say that he was God in the monotheistic definition, then it is reasonable then to infer that there is a God, and he exists as Jesus (God) insists he does and has the characteristics that Jesus says he does.  Alleged logical problems be d--ned.

"I say the reasonableness of reason requires an explanation as much as anything else does.  If you agree with that, you will pretty much always infer that God- a transcendental yet immanent, non-contingent agent- is the best explanation."

oh you got to be kidding. Why is that "inference" reasonable? What's the argument?

oh you got to be kidding. Why is that "inference" reasonable? What's the argument?

Perhaps if you would bother to click the link and read the whole post you would see the arguement. Or was he right about it not being fair to expect you to do research even with a link in front of you?

Aww Cavin. The guy who proposed Jesus had an unknown twin brother that grows up for years and is never noticed until the crucifixion. This is exactly why objections to the Ressurection usually don't carry much weight. They're invented out of thin air.

As an example, I found this reply to Cavin's essay to be apt: http://www.tektonics.org/tomb/cavin01.html

Nice circumstantial ad hominem. What does this have to do with the paper I cited?  (Answer: absolutely nothing).

Which is why I cited Gavin's article - it's a more thorough version of the argument I presented. (You won't bother to read it, of course--doing that will only threaten your convictions).

That's ridiculous.  If I was worried about having my convictions threatened I wouldn't host this forum and participate on it.   I won't read it because I've already read Gavin's material, just like I've already read nearly everything that atheists have put out over the years.  I can assure you that I've read more atheistic and secular humanistic material then you've read of theistic material.

What?  No admission that your statement was asinine?  Oh, yea, I'm really afraid of having my beliefs threatened.   Words don't describe how silly that is to say to someone who runs a board like this one.

As for reading that particular essay, no I haven't.  But I am familiar with Cavin and his claims and have read some of his material.  His twin theory is, shall we say, something that makes my job a lot easier when I make presentations on the resurrection.  I first encountered him through his twin theory arguments in the Craig-Cavin debate.  That's like mid 1990s or something.  So, I'm afraid to say, pal, its old news.

You will no doubt make some snide comment about me not having read this particular essay.  You said I wouldn't read it because I was worried about my having my beliefs threatened.  Uh, that's nonsense.  The most direct reason for why I won't read it is because as far as I know the text is not online.

"As for reading that particular essay, no I haven't. "

That's all I wanted to know. Buy the book (The Empty Tomb) and read it; if you have the money to buy books on atheism, then put that book on your reading list. 

I'm scheduled to debate someone over at the iidb (don't know when it's going to start). The resolution will be: Christian theism is certainly false. When it starts, I'll post a link to it here so that everyone can watch, and I plan on using the article I cited as one of core nuggets of my argument. You'll see the arguments then.