Circular reasoning

No. crashforg is showing me bullshit. He is noteven on the same page with the topic at hand. If you would like to join him, please do. But I am taking this thread where it wanted to go originally. As if there's a dearth of words in this thread, is this more BS? False. False. God does prove His character. People are not mad to carry the legacy of one man throughout ages, believe in Him, live and die for Him, and preach about Him, if He did nothing but only talk about Himself. If you would like to blunt face reject this, please do. I don't care.

Pauline (Dr. Sing): You have, in this thread, proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that My Creator, His Noodliness, The FSM, is the Almighty and One True God and authority on everything. It says so, right here in the The Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti MonsterPastafarians UNITE!!!!!!!! rAmen! Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

I'm sorry but speaking as a Christian, that is just silly.Read what you wrote.You said "Asking God to prove His authority is a matter of one's faith and worldview. ", so it is not God that is self authenticating but rather YOU who is authenticating God based on YOUR faith and YOUR worldview.If you had faith in crashfrog, then you would see that he is the ultimate authority.It is only your lack of faith and your limited worldview that prevents you from acknowledging crashfrog as the ultimate authority.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Exactly. There is absolutely no reason for me to have faith in crashfrog. I have strong reasons for my faith in God. Okay, so you obviously do not understand what I said. If you can't understand this much, we have much more basic issues to resolve before we go onto Ultimate authority.

quote:

---

If we believe X to be the ultimate authority, it CANNOT be on the basis of Y saying that X is the ultimate authority. I think it is obvious why not. I will say it anyway. 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. An ultimate authority cannot be declared so on the basis of other sources.

---

Did you say "Asking God to prove His authority is a matter of one's faith and worldview. "?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

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 ?

Crashfrog writes...

quote:

---

If we believe X to be the ultimate authority, it CANNOT be on the basis of Y saying that X is the ultimate authority. I think it is obvious why not. I will say it anyway. 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. An ultimate authority cannot be declared so on the basis of other sources.

---

Where does my paragraph say "authority need not be demonstrated or proven"?

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.

That sentence seems a bit garbled, and besides, why are you bringing Muhammed and/or Joseph Smith into this discussion?

Why not answer my question directly and honestly? Why all this nonsense?For one thing, you do not understand the difference between actually living out your claims and external evidence, do you? If you lived out your claims in a way that everyone around you acknowledged the greatness of your character, by all means, I will take you self-claim to ultimate authority into consideration. If you refuse this basic step, the argument is closed.For another thing, you do not even understand the above quoted. (my quote) Let me illustrate...If Paul IS the most supreme being that exists, does it make any sense for lets say...Joe to make that claim for Paul? Joe can most certainly corroborate a claim made by Paul himself, but he can't make the claim for Paul. Regardless of who's claiming what, for Paul to prove his supremeness is absolutely necessary. That does not count as external evidence, my friend. That very much counts as part of Paul's own SELF-authentication. Talking about God is enough motivation for you guys to generate nonsense so why talk about other people. Edited by Pauline, : No reason given.Edited by Pauline, : No reason given.Edited by Pauline, : No reason given.

Did you say "Asking God to prove His authority is a matter of one's faith and worldview. "?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

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.

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.

---

Read what you write.So God's authority depends on what someone believes.By the way, I am a believer and so have every right to examine your position.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!