|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 58 (9200 total) |
| |
Allysum Global | |
Total: 919,190 Year: 6,447/9,624 Month: 25/270 Week: 21/37 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 228 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
EMA writes:
quote: Circular reasoning. You cannot use the Bible as proof of the Bible. While inconsistency in the text is evidence that it isn't legit, the fact that it is internally consistent is not evidence that it is valid. The Iliad is internally consistent, but I don't see you claiming it is an accurate description in every detail of what happened in Troy. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 228 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined:
|
EMA responds to me:
quote: That is precisely the circularity I am talking about. You cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible. All you can do is show that the text is internally consistent. This tells us nothing about the validity or veracity of the text: Only that a statement made in one part is not contradicted in another part. The Iliad has the same internal structure as the Bible, and yet I don't see you proclaiming the validity of the story told.
quote: Circular reasoning. You are claiming that the Bible is the word of god because the bible says it is the word of god.
quote: Incorrect. There will only be a problem if the people who think that the text is "a total work of god" are unable to provide any justification for that claim outside of the book in question. That is a circular argument: The Bible is god's word because it says it is. If all this is is a discussion about the internal consistency of the work, then knock yourselves out. That doesn't mean the work is by a single person, however. It simply means that the story doesn't contradict itself. In order to show that the work has a single author (or even "inspiration" to be more abstract about it), you have to show evidence outside of the text in question. You cannot use the text to justify itself.
quote: And yet, you demand anybody who dares to examine the Bible to kow-tow to your insistence that they believe. Does the word "hypocrite" mean anything to you?
quote: And your justification for why that same claim can't be made against your holy book? Oh, that's right: You're assuming that which you're trying to prove through a circular argument. The Bible is the word of god because it claims to be. Well, the Iliad claims to be the story of the gods, too, so why should we deny it?
quote: First, you have no idea what I believe, so please do yourself a favor and stop trying to react to that impression that you have constructed for yourself. Pay attention to what I say and not what you wish I would say. Second, your demand that others have to accept your premises in order to have any legitimate criticism of a text is illegitimate, especially when the premises are circular arguments. Your refusal to accept criticism from those who do not share your theological structure is just as offensive and false as that which you feel upon being forced to apply the same attitude you have toward other works. Does the word "hypocrite" mean anything to you?
quote: Who said anything about "atheist"? I know I certainly didn't. You're suffering from two different fallacies: First: Anybody who disagrees with your theology is an atheist. Second: You can infer what someone believes simply because they disagree with you. For all you know, I may certainly consider the Bible to be the word of god. The only thing you actually know is that I consider your method of reasoning to come to that conclusion to be invalid. Please pay attention to what I actually say and not what you wish I would say. I take great pains to keep my personal theological position out of it precisely because of the reaction you had: Oh, you must be an X so of course your argument can be dismissed. No actual discussion of the argument that was put forward, just a knee-jerk dismissal because the argument was presented by a person who has a trait you find distasteful. Consider the possibility that I am Christian. How would you respond to my assertion that using the Bible to justify the Bible is a circular argument and therefore invalid?
quote: Why does it matter? How does my answer to that question have any effect upon whether or not a circular argument is legitimate?
quote: Are you asking if it is internally consistent? It clearly isn't. And no, that has nothing to do with who authored it. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 228 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined:
|
EMA writes:
quote: That only tells us about consistency, not accuracy. You're trying to justify a circular argument.
quote: And that's your mistake. Arguments do not depend on your belief state. If your argument does, then it is an illogical argument that is circular, assuming what it is attempting to prove.
quote: And that's your circular argument. Their claim is that it is the word of god because the Bible said it was. But that isn't valid. Just because someone else used the circular argument, that doesn't allow you to come along and pick it up to shout out, "See! It's true!" There is no way to extract validity out of a circular argument. Consistency, yes. Validity, no.
quote: Which necessarily means that the arguments are completely unjustified. The truth value of an argument is independent of one's "point of view." Things are true despite your point of view, not because of them. If you have to believe before it can work, then you are engaging in a circular argument.
quote: Ah, yes. The Lord/Liar/Lunatic fallacy. There are at least two other possibilities to consider. No, I'm not going to tell you what they are right now because I want you to think about it for a second. Suppose somebody says something that isn't true. What other possibility might there be for why it was said other than the person is lying or the person is crazy (for we know person isn't "lord" since the statement isn't true)?
quote: What do you think I'm doing? I'm pointing out that you're using a circular argument. You are trying to justify the Bible with the Bible and that is a logical fallacy. If all you were trying to do was determine consistency, you wouldn't be arguing about belief states. You certainly wouldn't be trying to grill me about my own personal theology, let alone accuse me of being an atheist simply because I am disagreeing with you. Let's not play dumb. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024