Circular Logic Explained for the Layman

I

ItalianScallion

Harley Rider
Hey newbie. The moderator asked that we all think before we waste memory space with new threads but you seem to start a new thread for every statement that I or another has said in other threads. Do you care? :smack:
 
D

dazed&fallen

fine artist
ItalianScallion said:
Hey newbie. The moderator asked that we all think before we waste memory space with new threads but you seem to start a new thread for every statement that I or another has said in other threads. Do you care? :smack:
Click to expand...


I have a right to post here too. Check your first amendment rights before admonishing me any further.
 
D

dazed&fallen

fine artist
ItalianScallion said:
Our moderator supercedes any & all human rights on this board so be warned you rebellious person! :evil:
Click to expand...


Fine shush me then. It only proves my point.

Shame on you Pharisees! You are like a dog sleeping in the cattle manger. You will not eat or let the cattle eat.

Oops! sorry I was having an bad acid flashback.
 
Last edited:
Dondi

Dondi

Dondi
The Bible is more than one book. It's 66 books written over a span of 1,500 years and 40 different author. So it's not circular reasoning at all, it's concensus.
 
L

libby

New Member
Dondi said:
Like what?
Click to expand...

He's could be referring to the deutero-canonical books, which can be found in Catholic Bibles, as well as in the original, 1611 King James Bible, but which were subsequently thrown out by Protestants.
 
Dondi

Dondi

Dondi
Ok, toss 'em in if you like. I fail to see how that affects the concensus of the books that were included. My whole point is that there is no circular reasoning here because you have various sources within the Bible attesting to the being the Word of God, even with some books giving credence to others. Each book of the bible is documented evidence.
 
Toxick

Toxick

Splat
dazed&fallen said:
Circular logic= The Bible is God's word because the Bible says so.

My logic isn't circular, it rests on evidence.
Click to expand...



Both of these are true statements.

Given the rest of your arguments, I think it's safe to say that we've drawn different conclusions from the existing evidence, however.




Your barely coherent posting style will allow me to continue to sleep soundly at night.
 
theArtistFormerlyKnownAs

theArtistFormerlyKnownAs

Well-Known Member
Dondi said:
Ok, toss 'em in if you like. I fail to see how that affects the concensus of the books that were included. My whole point is that there is no circular reasoning here because you have various sources within the Bible attesting to the being the Word of God, even with some books giving credence to others. Each book of the bible is documented evidence.
Click to expand...

libby said:
Let me answer your question with a question. How do you know which books belong in the Bible?
Click to expand...

:killingme
So, you are both ok with the collection of evidence that only agrees with the other "history" in the Bible, but ignoring any evidence that contradicts what your Book tells you? :roflmao:
 
L

libby

New Member
pcjohnnyb said:
:killingme
So, you are both ok with the collection of evidence that only agrees with the other "history" in the Bible, but ignoring any evidence that contradicts what your Book tells you? :roflmao:
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any evidence that says Noah's Ark did not exist, although I acknowledge that there is no evidence that it did. I cannot read that entire thread, so suffice it to say that said, my faith does not demand that I take the Bible as a literal, historical document. I would argue that the Bible is a compilation of styles of writing, all inspired by God, to reveal some supernatural Truth to man. God's inifinity had to be expressed and/or explained in finite terms; the immaterial and imutable had to be something tangible to us; God had to condescend to reveal Himself to us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top