Glen, maybe you don’t know what self-evidence is. Give us some examples of self-evidence we can all agree on.
A formally true statement, such as that “contradictions are false” isn’t true because of a body of evidence. It’s true because denying it is nonsensical.
Your final argument is a laughable mish-mash. I don’t need to supply evidence for what is self-evident by dint of what the term “self evident” means, which is to be known by virtue of its being available to be seen and understood on its own.
And claiming total victory at the end…LOL…if that’s your way of getting out of exposing your ignorance further, be my guest.
God claims tend to be self-refuting so I don’t take the time to even examine them – anymore. If anyone has heard a god-claim that they don’t think is self refuting, I would be interested in hearing it – but please, at least take the time to examine the claim for yourself first.
By the way, back to the original post. I also read his book on the historicity of Jesus and his case was indeed quite compelling. I was left with the feeling that there is a reasonable chance a trouble maker named Jesus was crucified but there are no sources that claim he had x and y qualities (especially magical ones). The story evolved years after his death by people creating a religion. In other words the lovey dovey magical miracle performing guy who claimed to be the son of God? No contemporary sources back it up. Just a guy named Jesus (a common name at the time) who was crucified. It helps that he was a historical scholar versed in ancient languages and highly familiar with historical sources from the time.