Circular reasoning

Well, hello there once again, Pauline. I trust you've been well. I think others have hashed this out quite well so far. However, I thought I'd reinforce that what I, too, see as a desperate bid to convince someone (anyone) that biblical literalists who ascribe to self-authentication (circular reasoning) "...aren't the only ones!", falls on its face at the outset. To be fair, I agree that there are some who do ascribe a higher authority to something other than a supernatural entity, but to say "everyone does it" is mistaken at best and dishonest at worst.Let's take your assertion that "those athiests" circularly look to science as the ultimate authority. As others have said, how can the simple direct observation of data in order to prove or disprove a hypothesis be considered circular reasoning? Now, many an ignoramus may look at a certain assertion about *insert natural phenomenon here* and think, "Well, this must be true since such-and-such journal says so and it's scientific, and since science is the ultimate authority, then it must be true! Forever!" However, the fact that (as many here have already said) even the most accepted views in science are quite regularly overturned by new emerging data would very much disqualify science as being any kind of ultimate authority. This would serve to make these ignoramuses, among other things, wrong. I, for one, would appreciate that you please stop misrepresenting the rest of us and know that you and the aforementioned folk share a common bond: to us reasonable folk, you're both inexorably incorrect in your circularity. My opinion, of course, worth price charged.Of course, the crux of the matter is highlighted when one ascribes to an absolute literal inerrancy of The Bible™, as I know that you do. Therefore, your inspired, god breathed version of The Bible™ becomes unquestionable to the point that literalists like yourself will actually consider it evidence for God being the ultimate authority, even though much of Christianity disagrees with you. And there's the circularity which, contrary to your objections, is really found nowhere in science: you're using your faith that The Bible™ is god-inspired versus the works of fallible men written in reverence to God as evidence for your faith. Interesting, that.So what would it take for you to accept Crashfrog's ultimate authority?Make the claim?See upthread.Immemorialize his words in his, the "Grand EVC Bible, 1st edition"?See upthread.Reports of Froggy miracles?Well, I just so happened to have heard from this one guy how this big 'ol toad got smashed in the street in a suburban Twin Cities area, was dead for a time, then was raised by none other than the Almighty Crashfrog. Praise Him.Answered prayers?Last week I prayed to Lord Crashfrog for a serious windfall in order to replace my broken washing machine (the collective pitstains in my dress shirts are becoming horrid). Wouldn't you know it, I was promoted to management with pay to match. Praise Him. Never mind that unanswered prayer the other night for relief from my chronic anxiety so I could get some sleep. I was up the whole damn night! But even that experience was a positive one in that it allowed me to become closer to Crashfrog in our Walk™: I pored over the verses of this thread all night long. In the end, my episodes of chronic insomnia are surely all part of The Grand Plan™, because if they weren't, that must mean the enemy is alive and well, and working...What? You don't believe me? Well, it doesn't matter to me since all who disbelieve will eventually find themselves in dire straits, to say the least. My faith is all I need. Praise Him.I'm sorry if I appear flippant about your faith, Pauline. I assure you my intent is not to deride, but just to attempt to present a parallel here. You see, you can't make any reasonable distinction between your brand of theistic self-authenticative circularity and Lord Crashfrog's because, my dear ... there isn't one. Have you not noticed yet how few of your fellow theists (fewer than usual, it seems) are coming to your aid in this topic? I propose that the reason for this is that most of the reasonable theists here see your argument as the fallacy that it is. Now I know this will probably degenerate into epithets and name-calling as most of your more contentious topics do, but what kind of debate site would EVC be if we all just ... agreed?Have a good one.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

As I'm sure you know, many theists will consider the "evidence" for their faith invisible until such time as they "receive the Holy Spirit." So to them, it's not circular at all since they instantly undergo some sort of awakening which unbelievers will never experience.Most of the unbelieving anti-Crashfrogism infidels in this thread will never understand the wisdom and enlightenment (which I like to call "evidence") which was revealed to me upon accepting you as my Savior. Praise you.Have a good one.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964