Circular reasoning

I get what you are saying. You claim that the Bible is a communication from God and that there is evidence in it that God actually is the ultimate authority.But what is this evidence ? Because I've read that Bible thoroughly and never found anything that would really qualify.

quote:

---

The entire Bible is about God. God, throughout its pages, is portrayed as the Ultimate authority.

---

As you told Crashfrog, assertions aren't evidence.

quote:

---

How can you read the Bible and also not agree that according to it, God is the ultimate authority? That's like asking if there is water in an ocean while standing on the beach and looking at it. That's plain unbelief. Do you not understand that God rules this universe when He claims to have created it? That He forgives sins? That He heals diseases? That He give prophecies that come true? That He fights battles for His people? That He performs miracles? That His character is like none other? That His wisdom is beyond human understanding? How can one ignore these, and many like them, and ask for more evidence?

---

Assertions, assertions, assertions. I asked for evidence, not assertions.

quote:

---

There is absolutely no reason for me to have faith in crashfrog. I have strong reasons for my faith in God.

---

And what are those reasons ? Are they evidence-based reasons ? Or something else ?

quote:

---

Yes. Which means, God's authority certainly is viewed differently by different worldviews and whether or not these include faith as part of them. For a rationalist, God's authority has not been proven for God Himself doesn't exist. For a believer, God exists and His authority is proven - by God Himself - and that is more than sufficient. An unbeliever has really no business trying to analyze this a logical fallacy unless he wants to demonstrate that he doesn't understand faith whatsoever.

---

By which you mean that your faith is YOUR ultimate authority. And that unbelievers shouldn't look at your arguments because they will see that you have presented a hideous mess of rationalisation in your attempts to justify your beliefs.If you don't want us to know the truth you should do a better job of hiding it, instead of complaining that we actually take a serious look at what you are saying.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Pauline claims that the bible supporting god's ultimate authority because he beliefs the bible is divine, and written by god. This may seem circular, but he remedies it by his belief in evidence that it's true.(such as prophecies coming true, etc). Atheists and agnostics do not believe in this evidence, and as a result, in their view, the reasoning becomes circular.

---

However, Pauline simply CLAIMED to have evidence and when questioned did not produce it. Even worse, Pauline initially claimed that evidence should NOT be available. In other words Pauline is making ad hoc arguments and moving the goal posts.

quote:

---

As is already becoming apparent, the evidence is IN DISPUTE. And it depends on the evidence if the reasoning is circular or not. For discussion about evidence: check all the topics.

---

And you will find that believers fail to produce convincing evidence and in fact their examples are often of failed prophecies. Which is why her opponents were confident enough to dare her to produce the evidence.

quote:

---

Criticism about circular reasoning is FUTILE, unless you happen to convince them that their evidence is false, or you let them be because a person just believes himself that the evidence is false.

---

When they won't even say what their evidence is it seems clear to me that the "evidence" isn't their real reason for belief.

Content deleted because the above post was declared off-topic while I was composing the message.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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.

---

Really? First you make a dubious argument that there can't be evidence then when it becomes clear that evidence is needed you claim that you have it and then when asked to produce it you decline to do so.That seems to be a very odd way to hold a discussion and if it has wandered it seems to be largely your fault for chopping and changing.

quote:

---

For example, PaulK's tantrums about me not producing the evidence that supports God's ultimate authority (and not just me but ALL christians).

---

Oh ? It's stupid to ask you for evidence you claim to have ? And "throwing a tantrum" ? I think such a phrase better describes your post here.So if we might sum up, your OP was wrong in that it IS wise to seek evidence before accepting any source as an "ultimate authority" - and you don't have that evidence.