Circular reasoning

It must be an invisible, non-existent answer then. This is exactly where you're misinterpreting my reasoning. You're assuming that this evidence of living out your claim is EXTERNAL. You're assuming it to be the Y source. I am not. I'm claiming that the "living out" a.k.a evidence as you put it , is part and parcel of the internal self-authentication. After all, can Joe live out Paul- the ultimate authority - 's character qualities? No. They are Paul's internal proof of his own claims. We are both calling it evidence ans seeint its need, but you see it as external to the claimant whereas I see it not just as internal evidence but the BASIS of self-authentication. No. If Joe makes the claim for Paul, then whose authority are we going by? Joe's. An external source of evidence. Not just that, but a HIGHER authority than Paul. This is self-contradictory.Do you not see the difference between the two sources compared here? Joe- an external source and Paul's living out his claims- an internal source? That is not irrelevant. That is the heart of this topic. The question is, who is making the claim because remember we are talking about the ultimate authority. It is vital that he himself make the claim or else he disqualifies. Given any normal claim to authority, by all means look at evidence and only evidence regardless of who makes the claims. But ours is a special case- one where self-authentication necessary and relevant. Got me wrong again. I can't help it. This shows that you some sort of atheist robot programmed to rebut issues you don't even care or think about. Why someone? I said that. And I still stand by it. Edited by Pauline, : No reason given.Edited by Pauline, : No reason given.

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.

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!

Huh?Neither of those make any sense at all. It's also a very poorly done logical construct.Let me see if I can help you.Try this.If angels exist then angels exist regardless of any belief or evidence that they do not exist.
If angels do not exist then they do not exist regardless of any belief or evidence that they exist.Now that is at least a valid construct even if it tells us nothing. Sure, but so far you have offered no evidence to support God's authority anymore than Vishnu being the ultimate authority

---

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

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.

Yes, the argument you have presented is both circular and fallacious. You claimed that God is the ultimate authority because God claims to be the ultimate authority.When it was pointed out to you that was just silly, for example crashfrog also claims to be the ultimate authority, you then made the claim that stories in a book and tales told long ago supported the idea that God was the ultimate authority; so the basis for your claim has moved from God's claim to the stories being the source. When it was pointed out to you that other stories and tales told long ago show that Vishnu is the ultimate authority, you switched to world view and faith. When it was pointed out to you that you were now claiming that it was YOUR belief that supported YOUR claim that the Christian God was the ultimate authority you returned the beginning.Look, it's fine to say you believe that God is the ultimate authority, I actually agree with you, but quite honestly there is NO evidence, reason, logic or rational to support that belief.It really is simply a matter of FAITH.But everything you have posted is really circular and fallacious.

---

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

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.

Did you say "How can you read the Bible and also not agree that according to it, God is the ultimate authority? "Did you say "Asking God to prove His authority is a matter of one's faith and worldview. "?Did you say "For a believer, God exists and His authority is proven - by God Himself - and that is more than sufficient." ? Then I imagine you can point out the falsehoods I'm spreading and show why they are false. Then perhaps you can point out why the claims made in the Vedas are not sufficient to support Vishnu, the Creator, as the ultimate authority? So you didn't post the things quoted above?You did not say "Asking God to prove His authority is a matter of one's faith and worldview. " and "For a believer, God exists and His authority is proven - by God Himself - and that is more than sufficient."?

---

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

This seems muddled. If you will only accept someone's claims if you see evidence for those claims, then you're not taking him as the ultimate authority on the subject about which he's making claims, but rather the evidence of your own eyes. If the claim was that he was the ultimate authority, then by the very act of considering the evidence for or against that you implicitly deny that this is the case. And if you are convinced of that claim by the evidence, rather than by the claim itself, then you have painted yourself into a self-contradictory corner; just as if you said "I'll believe that Pete is the ultimate authority, but only because Joe tells me so".

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.

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.

This statement is a direct violation of the commandment against worshiping graven (engraved and mass printed) images.To worship a book instead of the holy spirit is an insult to all major religions. It is nothing other than worshiping idols. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

quote:

---

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.

---

As an onlooker, I'm very disappointed. I have been waiting for you to show me the difference between what you were originally claiming and what crashfrog is claiming. I don't see a difference.You expect real time evidence from crashfrog, and claim God is providing real time evidence. What you haven't shown is the real time evidence that you feel God is providing. All you offer for evidence is a book where the newest additions are over 1500 years old. The evidence may have been real time for the people back then, but what is available today?To remain the ultimate authority throughout time, real time evidence would need to be available for authentication in every generation.Where in the Bible does God actually claim to be the ultimate authority over everything?
Give a few examples from the Bible of the evidence that backs up that claim.
Provide current evidence that you feel still backs up that original claim today.

quote:

---

Let's have a vote. Who get's this round?

---

They countered your argument with their own and you whined about their argument instead of addressing it. You went and hid behind belief instead of really discussing circular reasoning.If this was ping pong, your opposition would get a point because you didn't return the ball to the playing area.

quote:

---

Remember: BOTH of us agree that evidence (living out/demonstrating claims) is absolutely necessary. We disagree on whether the evidence is external or internal.

---

That wasn't your original argument. IMO, you're just changing the evidence requirements to gut feelings to claim faith/belief as your evidence, which isn't something that anyone else can check. IOW, God is the ultimate authority for you personally because you believe he is the ultimate authority supposedly because of what you've read in the Bible.Please give examples of external and internal evidence as it pertains to authenticating an ultimate authority.What internal evidence has God provided?

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

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