Circular Logic Explained for the Layman

J

jaybeeztoo

Guest
Hmmmm a bunch of bilble thumpers again. Bible thumpers are not all they are cracked up to be. Bunch of hypocrites in my eyes.

JMO

Don't try to preach to me either.
 
theArtistFormerlyKnownAs

theArtistFormerlyKnownAs

Well-Known Member
libby said:
The point, funnyman, is that evidence of either position will make no difference to you, because it is not proof.
You seem to require proof, in which case, there is no such thing as faith.

Am I missing your point?
Click to expand...

Evidence of what?
I know you surely can't be calling the Bible evidence of God existing.
There is a reason there are 2 main classifications for books. Fiction, and non-fiction...not everything written down actually happened :smile:
 
I

ItalianScallion

Harley Rider
libby said:
The point, funnyman, is that evidence of either position will make no difference to you, because YOU HAVE NO FAITH.
You seem to require proof, in which case, there is no such thing as faith.
Click to expand...
:fixed: for him Libby.
pcjohnnyb said:
Evidence of what?
I know you surely can't be calling the Bible evidence of God existing.
There is a reason there are 2 main classifications for books. Fiction, and non-fiction...not everything written down actually happened :smile:
Click to expand...
Ya know, talking to some of you about God is like trying to teach a fish about Algebra. There is clearly ZERO understanding or desire to understand. It's sad how you read the paper or listen to the biased news and believe what they say but believe the Word of God? No way!
Let's proceed:
No books that are of ANY real value were left out of the Bible. Any Apocryphal book that was not included in the Bible Canon does not have any more valuable information in it that the original 39 OT books do. In fact, some of the Apocryphal books weren't included because, at some points, they contradict the teachings of ALL the Canonical books.
If God thought that anything else should be added, He would have added it. The same goes for books that, you think, should have been left out.
The Bible is one proof of God's existence (though you'll never believe it here).
If I go around bragging on myself people will look down on me but if someone else goes around bragging about me, I will look good to others. It is not good for anyone to brag on themselves but the Bible can because of BOTH internal & external proof for it's divine authorship. There is plenty of external proof of the Bible's credibility. Your lack of faith won't allow you to see it! :evil:
 
theArtistFormerlyKnownAs

theArtistFormerlyKnownAs

Well-Known Member
ItalianScallion said:
:fixed: for him Libby.

Ya know, talking to some of you about God is like trying to teach a fish about Algebra. There is clearly ZERO understanding or desire to understand. It's sad how you read the paper or listen to the biased news and believe what they say but believe the Word of God? No way!
Let's proceed:
No books that are of ANY real value were left out of the Bible. Any Apocryphal book that was not included in the Bible Canon does not have any more valuable information in it that the original 39 OT books do. In fact, some of the Apocryphal books weren't included because, at some points, they contradict the teachings of ALL the Canonical books.
If God thought that anything else should be added, He would have added it. The same goes for books that, you think, should have been left out.
The Bible is one proof of God's existence (though you'll never believe it here).
If I go around bragging on myself people will look down on me but if someone else goes around bragging about me, I will look good to others. It is not good for anyone to brag on themselves but the Bible can because of BOTH internal & external proof for it's divine authorship. There is plenty of external proof of the Bible's credibility. Your lack of faith won't allow you to see it! :evil:
Click to expand...

:coffee:
You obviously missed my point(s).
Also, I believe there is most likely a God :shrug: I don't need a book to tell me that :lol: I was just pointing out yet another flaw in the Bible :shrug:
 
L

libby

New Member
pcjohnnyb said:
Evidence of what?
I know you surely can't be calling the Bible evidence of God existing.
There is a reason there are 2 main classifications for books. Fiction, and non-fiction...not everything written down actually happened :smile:
Click to expand...

I would agree with you that the Bible is not evidence or proof that God exists. However, if a person acknowledges/believes there is a God, and that God is an all loving God who created us out of love, then the Bible tells us the remarkable story of human life/purpose/existence. Could you come to it without the Bible? Well, that's another subject...
 
PsyOps

PsyOps

Pixelated
pcjohnnyb said:
Evidence of what?
I know you surely can't be calling the Bible evidence of God existing.
There is a reason there are 2 main classifications for books. Fiction, and non-fiction...not everything written down actually happened :smile:
Click to expand...

I don't think the Bible was ever intended to be a book that was written to prove God's existence. It was written as a guide for believers. A handbook, if you will.

I can no more provide proof that God exists than the scientific world can provide proof there was a big bang or black holes.
 
I

ItalianScallion

Harley Rider
pcjohnnyb said:
Just curious...if there was a total concensus...then why were some books/authors left out of the Bible?
Click to expand...
pcjohnnyb said:
:coffee:
You obviously missed my point(s).
Also, I believe there is most likely a God :shrug: I don't need a book to tell me that :lol: I was just pointing out yet another flaw in the Bible :shrug:
Click to expand...
No I didn't miss your point. Look at your previous post above. You asked a question that I answered for you. Some books were left out for various reasons but this is not a "flaw in the Bible".
Are you are trying to say that you know more than God does because you think certain books should have been included that weren't? If any other books should have been included, they would be there today. That's all.
 
J

Jam4eva

New Member
dazed&fallen said:
Circular logic= The Bible is God's word because the Bible says so.
Click to expand...

I am no Christian apologist, but I know a strawman when I see one. If I were a Christian apologist, my starting point would be along the lines of "the Bible is the word of God because God said so." Nothing circular about that.
 
I

ItalianScallion

Harley Rider
Jam4eva said:
I am no Christian apologist, but I know a strawman when I see one. If I were a Christian apologist, my starting point would be along the lines of "the Bible is the word of God because God said so." Nothing circular about that.
Click to expand...
Yes, but this means nothing to people who don't believe in God so, for them, external proof is used.
Saying that, however, doesn't change anything because they are NOT going to believe in Him until they meet Him. You've got to know what you're dealing with on here. :howdy:
 
theArtistFormerlyKnownAs

theArtistFormerlyKnownAs

Well-Known Member
PsyOps said:
I don't think the Bible was ever intended to be a book that was written to prove God's existence. It was written as a guide for believers. A handbook, if you will.

I can no more provide proof that God exists than the scientific world can provide proof there was a big bang or black holes.
Click to expand...
:killingme :roflmao:
You really did just use two scientifically proven facts/existences to compare to your lack of proof for a God? :lol:

ItalianScallion said:
No I didn't miss your point. Look at your previous post above. You asked a question that I answered for you. Some books were left out for various reasons but this is not a "flaw in the Bible".
Are you are trying to say that you know more than God does because you think certain books should have been included that weren't? If any other books should have been included, they would be there today. That's all.
Click to expand...

How do you figure? The bible was put together by man...and we both know that no man is perfect. The people choosing the books to include could easily have left out important ones, and how do you know which composition of the Bible is the correct one? :shrug:
 
G

Gwydion

New Member
pcjohnnyb said:
:killingme :roflmao:
You really did just use two scientifically proven facts/existences to compare to your lack of proof for a God? :lol:
Click to expand...
To be fair, the big bang is a theory. Although, unlike, say the bible, we arrived at that theory after hundreds of years of research, fact checking, and study. And while we are unable to prove that it all started with a big bang....we can ultimately conclude that it is the most likely scientifically backed theory of our origin.

As opposed to the bible that started with an idea then had "facts" built around that idea until people began believing it enough to have a "theory".
 
theArtistFormerlyKnownAs

theArtistFormerlyKnownAs

Well-Known Member
Gwydion said:
To be fair, the big bang is a theory. Although, unlike, say the bible, we arrived at that theory after hundreds of years of research, fact checking, and study. And while we are unable to prove that it all started with a big bang....we can ultimately conclude that it is the most likely scientifically backed theory of our origin.

As opposed to the bible that started with an idea then had "facts" built around that idea until people began believing it enough to have a "theory".
Click to expand...

True.
I did watch a show on Discovery Channel last week though and they were pretty much discussing the Big Bang like it was fact...I sort of went...:confused: :shrug: ok. :lol: They said that like...30% of the static on a TV (analog signal I think) was from "leftover radiation from the Big bang". or something along those lines. I found something more interesting to watch though after like 15 minutes :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top