This is just sketching how you might try to establish the motives of credibility. Actually doing these things is quite another thing.
But, the sketch itself seems naive to me:Since knowledge is factive, to say God’s existence can be known begs the question against the atheist.
1. Think about it. An atheist asserts that God does not exist. Who is begging the question.
2. We do have facts proving God’s existence. But facts are not always accepted by the unbelieving party. Have you ever heard of the Flat Earth Society?
Further, look at the fine-tuning argument you mentioned. Have you heard of any of the following?1. The principle of indifference.2. Bayesian probability.3. Fallacy of undetermined evidence.4. Prosecutor’s Fallacy.
I have now.
Unless you’re fairly fluent with these concepts (and there are still others), I’d doubt you could formulate a fine-tuning argument that could even get off the ground.
Sounds like you’ve made up your mind.
The same thing goes for the Resurrection. There are so many objections I’d raise to that. Your task just seems daunting.
1. You’re assuming some task? As though we must prove something to someone. That is false. This may sound sort of “members only” and “snooty”, but the fact is:
1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Unless God the Father, opens your eyes to His Grace in this world, no amount of argumentation will convince you of anything Spiritual.
2. But IF He does. YOU will look at all those theories you enumerated and decimate them yourself. We will simply stand back and watch.
1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Sincerely,
De Maria