Circular reasoning

In the part I quoted, where you say:

quote:

---

If Y is the supposed evidence for X being the ultimate authority, then X no longer is a candidate for ultimate authority, Y takes its place.

---

Are you denying that you wrote those words? Because they seem pretty clear, to me - were I to provide evidence for my claim of being the "ultimate authority", as you keep asking for, I would no longer be the ultimate authority - whatever evidence I provided would be.Frankly, Pauline, you've contradicted yourself so many times in this thread I can do this all day. I can answer your skepticism of my claim to be the "ultimate authority" with everything you've said to rebut skepticism of the Bible's claim that God is the ultimate authority.That's because, as I've demonstrated, your position is nothing more than begging the question - "it's not a fallacy when I do it." Yes, it is. Not circular reasoning, as you incorrectly identified it, but the fallacy of begging the question.

I did. Why lie about it? Because:

quote:

---

If Y is the supposed evidence for X being the ultimate authority, then X no longer is a candidate for ultimate authority, Y takes its place.

---

If you needed my lived life as evidence for my claim of being the ultimate authority, then I wouldn't be the ultimate authority - the evidence of my life would be.Look, I'm just following your reasoning as you laid it out. If it seems flawed to you, you need to resolve the cognitive dissonance on your own. These are your lines of reasoning, not mine, which is why I was so deftly able to contradict you with your own words. (I don't know how you're ever going to live that down.) Of course he can. The question is not who is making the claim - that's irrelevant - but what evidence there is for the claim. Using the claim itself as evidence, as you do when you use the Bible as evidence for the claims of the Bible, is fallacious begging the question.Anybody can make claims. Making claims is not evidence. Or, as someone one said:

quote:

---

Assertion is not equivalent to demonstration.

---

No, it's the one I wrote. Of course it is. I'm not evidence; I'm not my life. Since I'm not them - they're Y and I'm X - by your own reasoning they can't be a form of "self-authentication." Of course not, but Paul isn't "Paul's character qualities", either. Evidence about his character is something necessarily external to Paul. Nobody's, if Joe offers no evidence for his claim and therefore we reject it. In your case, the human authors of the Bible are making the claim about God, which is why it's funny you're even talking about "self-authentication" in the first place - you've already established that if you're using the Bible to corroborate the notion of God as the ultimate authority, you've actually set up the Bible as ultimate authority, not God.Remember:

quote:

---

If Y is the supposed evidence for X being the ultimate authority, then X no longer is a candidate for ultimate authority, Y takes its place.

---

So the question all along has really not been why you consider God the ultimate authority, but why you consider the Bible the ultimate authority. No. It's vital that he, or another, substantiate the claim or he disqualifies. It doesn't matter who makes the claim, because we evaluate claims on the basis of evidence, not on the basis of who makes them. Evaluating a claim on the basis of who is making it is also a fallacy; it's the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. There's nothing special about your case. You don't get a pass on begging the question by saying "it's a special case", because saying "it's a special case" is the fallacy of begging the question."It's not fallacious when I do it" is not sound logical reasoning. It's the fallacy of begging the question. Oh, so you already knew about the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem!

Did a Bible create the world, or did God? Did a Bible create Adam and Eve, or did God? Did a Bible part the Red Sea for Moses and the Israelites, or did God? How did the Bible do these things when the Bible did not exist until around 700 AD?Just as I am not these words, the Bible isn't God, just as the Bible says. I haven't, but it seems like you have. You've decided to worship a book of men instead of The Lord. The very concept of "self-authentication" is fallacious begging the question, as I've demonstrated.

If the evidence is only valid once you assume the truth of the Bible, then it's circular reasoning, because you have to assume to be true what the evidence is meant to prove for the evidence to be valid at all.Circular reason, to remind you, is when the conclusion and one of the premises are the same. If the validity of the evidence meant to prove a conclusion is premised on the conclusion being true then you're engaged in circular reasoning. Noting that an argument is based on a fallacy and is therefore invalid disproves an argument regardless of whether its conclusion or premises are true or not. That's why they're called logical fallacies and not logical "falsities." It's not that a fallacious argument proves that the conclusion is false, because it doesn't. A fallacious argument proves nothing at all.Otherwise I could prove any statement by simply constructing a fallacious argument for the contrary. If the conclusions of a fallacious argument are interpreted as known to be false as a result, then logically the inverse statement must be true ( ~~A = A, by double negation.) But we know that's not how it works. Fallacious arguments prove nothing at all - just as Pauline has proven nothing at all, this entire thread. That's the best part - fallacies in arguments are never subjective. You've either committed the fallacy or you haven't. It never matters what you were actually trying to prove; if your argument was fallacious you've failed to prove it. There's no subjectivity about it at all. I'm an atheist, too, who was once in your position. I think when you look back at this point in your life from the future you'll realize you're not actually a Christian at all, now, and haven't been for some time.

No, it's not, and the refutation of your argument that it is has been the subject of 20 posts of mine in this thread. Self-authentication is fallacious circular reasoning - even when Christians do it.Would you like to at last respond to my argument in a way that doesn't completely contradict everything you put forth at the outset?

Yes - that your argument was vaild.Instead we proved that it was invalid. "Self-authentication" is fallacious circular reasoning - yes, even when Christians do it.