Circular reasoning

Do angels exist?A. Depends. Depends on whether or not you believe they do or not. That's because their existence is not determined by objective, universal, physical evidence like the existence of Bismuth metal is. Or Gold metal. Or the Sun. Or the moon.That's the answer from man's perspective.B. Their real existence is independent of whether or not you believe they do.That's the answer from reality's perspective.Faith is a bold step that people take when they are confident that what they believe to be true is what reality will eventually prove to be true.Both answers are correct. God's authority, if it exists, exists regardless of whether or not people acknowledge it. That's from God's perspective. From our limited perspective, it very much depends on our worldview and how much faith we can afford to have. Did I stop you? Edited by Pauline, : No reason given.

This is your position, I see. I think it is faulty. The Bible and God are one. Case closed.For me, not for you. You may continue in your mis-judgement. Ultimate, ultimate, ultimate is the key word here. Don't forget that. Yeah, I do. I got live demonstration of it on this thread. You, Jumped up Chimpanzee, Huntard, hooah....thanks guys, for educating me.Alright, since both you and I have succintly fleshed out our positions, let's see what side the majority of onlookers will take. This should hopefully settle the matter.I am going to succinctly propose my position once again:The ultimate authority's living out his claims i.e providing proof i.e showing evidence is an INTERNAL source of evidence. It is highly necessary and valuble and is the basis for his self-authentication. He cannot claim anything without demonstrating his rights and reasons to claim it by actually, really living out his claims.Crashfrog...do you mind stating your position?Let's have a vote. Who get's this round?Remember: BOTH of us agree that evidence (living out/demonstrating claims) is absolutely necessary. We disagree on whether the evidence is external or internal. Edited by Pauline, : No reason given.

This is what happens when you refuse to think about what I post and offer your own explanation like a pre-programmed robot. Did you even fully read the rest of the post you quoted me from? Did I not tell you that belief is relative and contingent on worldview? The topic is not "Pauline: list the reasons why God is the higher authority that exists.The topic is, is the so-alleged circular reasoning logical fallacy really a fallacy in the Christian worldview? Why/ why not. How/ how not? Edited by Pauline, : No reason given.

Nonsense. My claim has always been God's self-authentication in His Word. Babble all you like. Nonsense again. Looks like you are displaying your faulty thinking and misinterpretation on message boards for the whole web community to amuse themselves. Nonsense. Oh yeah? What is the basis for faith then?As far the bolded goes, it is people like you who make faith look silly and stupid by spreading falsehoods. What more could I expect from atheistic robots? Edited by Pauline, : No reason given.Edited by Pauline, : No reason given.Edited by Pauline, : No reason given.

Thanks for the reply Purpledawn. I'm busy until Wednesday, I'll get back as soon as I can.

Well, since I'm the one who created the topic, I should know whether I am 'desperate' for peer approval or simply for the evolutionist community to understand the simple concept of self authentication by stepping out of their bigoted mindset. I don't so much as to care about furthering the topic anymore either simply because I've gotten plenty of demonstration of sheer incapacity and weakness of the atheist/evolutionary mind to comprehend an idea totally foreign to its realm and worldview. That is pitiable. And I at best and worst only pity the participants of this thread who have so enthusiastically provided an emotional outlet for their crippled minds' incapacity. It is not up to me to convince you of anything, you and I are well aware of that. Honestly, this discussion is one where there is no need of evidence - as in evidence for whether or not God is infact the ultimate authority as He claims to be- to be produced. The reason being, such a claim was neither presented for scrutiny nor is the main topic at hand. It surely was used multiple times by me in order to illustrate my main topic- is self-authentication valid in worldviews that incorporate an ultimate authority?. That doesn't at all mean that the main topic be shoved aside in a desperate (to use the word in this instance seems more appropriate to me, Apothecus) attempt to distract the participants or boost the glamor or potency of the discussion by asking for "EVIDENCE, for God being the Ultimate authority!!!"If this discussion was a demonstration of the bigot nature of the atheist community, then let me applaud you all for you have communicated the message quite potently. For example, participants who do not understand the difference between internal and external difference. I honestly do not know how to communicate the idea to them. I know that that is a very simple concept. And yet, I've got people who claim that 'a person demonstrating his character qualities and works that make him worthy of the title of ultimate authority' is mere EVIDENCE. Yes it is, but what kind of evidence? I don't think they ask that question. There is absolutely no point is stopping right there and concluding that evidence authenticates a person's claims. I am not saying that is wrong..but it is not right either. Think about it. Yes, you do appear quite flippant. And neither will I accept any apologetic assurances because I well know that the main intent was infact, to deride. If not, I am horrendously surprised that even you would resort to such a childish means of rebuttal. There is no parallel at all between crashfrog's claims and God's claims. You and I know very well that Christianity is a faith founded in history. Christianity has been subject to scrutiny and has passed the test. If Christianity is 'irrational' to you guys, then atheism takes the word to a whole another realm to us. Please remember that.I don't understand the intent of the 'show me the evidence for God's being the ultimate authority' chant being sung here. Is it to 'make me- the theist- think about my own claims, perhaps to make me realize that they are wrong (as my opponents would claim they are)? If so, there is no point, really. That would be like me trying to explain the intricacies and workings of atheism to you all. I would suck at that. And you know, you guys suck at teaching me about my own faith too. Instead, why don't we all just discuss the proposed topic? The topic being, is the concept of self-authentication valid in worldivews that incorporate an ultimate authority, why/why not? If yes, how?Edited by Pauline, : No reason given.

I see you're having a good time, Apothecus.Indeed, have a good one.

So you expected me to 'prove' something? I'm sorry, but I have no such intentions. My intent was to introduce the topic to this community and have a discussion about it. I have introduced the topic, but unfortunately the people here are stupid enough to deviate and start asking me for something else. Which, I cannot help but pity them. For example, PaulK's tantrums about me not producing the evidence that supports God's ultimate authority (and not just me but ALL christians). Have I called atheism into question in this discussion? No. If you want to shut this topic down and talk about our faiths, then PaulK can throw all the tantrums he wants. And I too will have a feast pointing out the absurdities of atheism. I suppose we should do that instead.