The Divinity of the Bible

[Marcylene]

#16 DV, those are only a couple of explainations of why I believe the Bible is perfect. But the Bible explains itself better than I ever could. God's Word is perfect because He tells me that it is, because He is the Word, and because He cannot/will not lie.

The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimonly of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. Psalm 19:7

 

[Dark Virtue]

And you don't see the logical problems with that?

It's a logical fallacy called CIRCULAR REASONING.

A more complex but equally fallacious type of circular reasoning is to create a circular chain of reasoning like this one: "God exists." "How do you know that God exists?" "The Bible says so." "Why should I believe the Bible?" "Because it's the inspired word of God."

The so-called "final proof" relies on unproven evidence set forth initially as the subject of debate. Basically, the argument goes in an endless circle, with each step of the argument relying on a previous one, which in turn relies on the first argument yet to be proven. Surely God deserves a more intelligible argument than the circular reasoning proposed in this example!

 

[Marcylene]

I have come to the point in my life, dear DV, that I do not want to think outside or apart from God. I have not arrived, but that is where I long, strive, and desire to firmly stand. Call it circular if you will. I can only thank you for the compliment. A circle can be, as in a wedding ring, for example, is a sign of eternal things. Our celestial bodies orbit circularly! When it comes to things of God, hopefully, that circle will ALWAYS bring me right back to Him!!!

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Hebrews 11:6

So, in response to your question, "No, I do not have a problem with that."

 

[Dark Virtue]

Then that is very sad indeed.

Would you be no less saddened if I told you I refused to believe that you could be right, or that I refused to believe even the slightest possibility God could exist?

You have closed your mind and put blinders on. If the truth were presented to you, you would refuse to accept it.

You have become the type of Christian I fear most.

What point is there in discussing anything logically with you when you have tossed logic in the trash?

Why should I be open to the possibility that YOU are right, when you won't even give me the chance to prove that I am right? That's not fair.

 

[Marcylene]

Do you need a tissue?

Would you be no less saddened if I told you I refused to believe that you could be right, or that I refused to believe even the slightest possibility God could exist?

I feel that is what you do!

Why should I be open to the possibility that YOU are right, when you won't even give me the chance to prove that I am right? That's not fair.

I believe the very fact that I respond to you is giving you that chance. I try to be fair. I am simply saying that I have searched things out for myself. It is my firm belief that a life with God is far better than one without! Or trying to live without Him, for He never leaves us! I see beautiful examples in the lives of others of what God can/will/does do in a persons life, simply given the opportunity.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Let me ask you point blank.

Is there a possibility that you could be wrong in your beliefs? Is there a possibility that God does not exist?

I don't know what I need to prove to you that I am simply without belief. I LACK BELIEF. I do not believe in gods, nor do I disbelieve in them. I don't have enough information to make that decision.

You, on the other hand, are saying that you believe in God, though you don't have any proof and you are not open to any other possibility, no matter how slight or how true it may be. Is that pretty much it?

Is this the attitude that you think I display? If so, why do you think I waste my time here asking questions? Haven't I said, on many occasions, that I would be more than willing to be proven wrong? All I need is the evidence to believe differently.

 

[Didasko]

And you don't see the logical problems with that?

It's a logical fallacy called CIRCULAR REASONING.

Macro evolution is a circular argument with absolutely no proof(even with the fossil records your sig speaks of...which in my opinion do more to prove creation than evolution. Atheism is a circular argument with absolutely no proof. Aliens are a circular argument with absolutely no proof. Global warming is a circular argument with absolutely no proof.

The SCIENTIFIC proof that you ask for is none existent for any of those topics. As you know you are asking for something that cannot be given. Christians believe on faith. We are lead by the Spirit. God has opened our eyes. I don't expect you to understand DV. There is no argument that you cannot turn circular using secular logic.

 

[Didasko]

Why should I be open to the possibility that YOU are right, when you won't even give me the chance to prove that I am right? That's not fair.

Here is your chance. Prove to me that you are right.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Macro evolution is a circular argument with absolutely no proof(even with the fossil records your sig speaks of...which in my opinion do more to prove creation than evolution. Atheism is a circular argument with absolutely no proof. Aliens are a circular argument with absolutely no proof. Global warming is a circular argument with absolutely no proof.

Which is why I am not a proponent of macro evolution. I'd love to know how the fossil record supports young earth creationism, or creationism in general. How is atheism a circular argument when it's not an argument at all, thus needing no proof, because there is nothing to prove. What argument are you using to explain aliens? I think at this point, you just like typing "circular argument".

The SCIENTIFIC proof that you ask for is none existent for any of those topics. As you know you are asking for something that cannot be given. Christians believe on faith. We are lead by the Spirit. God has opened our eyes. I don't expect you to understand DV. There is no argument that you cannot turn circular using secular logic.

AH, so there is no logical reason to believe as you believe. Is that the bottom line? That would explain a lot.

 

[Didasko]

Which is why I am not a proponent of macro evolution. I'd love to know how the fossil record supports young earth creationism, or creationism in general. How is atheism a circular argument when it's not an argument at all, thus needing no proof, because there is nothing to prove. What argument are you using to explain aliens? I think at this point, you just like typing "circular argument".



AH, so there is no logical reason to believe as you believe. Is that the bottom line? That would explain a lot.

LOL DV I love the way you jump to illogical conclusions to make things seem absurd.

Atheism is most assuredly an argument. It is a flat out argument that God does not exist, and there is no logical way to prove that.

I'm not using an argument to explain aliens. There is no way to prove them one way or the other. Any argument about their existence or nonexistence is all hypothetical and ends up being a circular argument.

The fossil records show absolutely no macro evolution from one species to another. Micro or change within a given species yes. That scientific evidence points away from macro. So I could be absurd like your sig and claim it as evidence for my cause

And as to someone liking to type 'circular argument' uumm maybe you should count and see who has typed it most on these boards

 

[Dark Virtue]

LOL DV I love the way you jump to illogical conclusions to make things seem absurd.

Atheism is most assuredly an argument. It is a flat out argument that God does not exist, and there is no logical way to prove that.

I'm not using an argument to explain aliens. There is no way to prove them one way or the other. Any argument about their existence or nonexistence is all hypothetical and ends up being a circular argument.

The fossil records show absolutely no macro evolution from one species to another. Micro or change within a given species yes. That scientific evidence points away from macro. So I could be absurd like your sig and claim it as evidence for my cause

And as to someone liking to type 'circular argument' uumm maybe you should count and see who has typed it most on these boards

Sigh

Why do you STILL fail to realize that there is a difference between Weak and Strong Atheism?

 

[Didasko]

Sigh

Why do you STILL fail to realize that there is a difference between Weak and Strong Atheism?

And how do you know which one I was referring to in my post? I understand the difference DV you have explained it before. My point was just to show all the circular arguments out there...

 

[Azzie]

Hmm...this is getting a little hot it seems. I hope I'm not violating certain terms of agreement by asking people to cool down a bit; some things here begin to seem to be potentially offensive.

This may have been asked before, but I don't think I've seen the answered yet:

DV, what do you intend on getting out of proving that God can't be proven? Tell me what doing so would solve, if you would please.

 

[Dark Virtue]

And how do you know which one I was referring to in my post? I understand the difference DV you have explained it before. My point was just to show all the circular arguments out there...

Because you could have only referred to STRONG atheism, implying that I subscribed to that theory, which I do not. I don't believe in strong atheism because it has the SAME problems as religious beliefs. Weak atheism, on the other hand, doesn't create an argument, circular or otherwise.

 

[Didasko]

Hmm...this is getting a little hot it seems. I hope I'm not violating certain terms of agreement by asking people to cool down a bit; some things here begin to seem to be potentially offensive.

This may have been asked before, but I don't think I've seen the answered yet:

DV, what do you intend on getting out of proving that God can't be proven? Tell me what doing so would solve, if you would please.

I hope that DV has not been offended by any of my posts. From my point of view we are just having a good discussion here.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Hmm...this is getting a little hot it seems. I hope I'm not violating certain terms of agreement by asking people to cool down a bit; some things here begin to seem to be potentially offensive.

This may have been asked before, but I don't think I've seen the answered yet:

DV, what do you intend on getting out of proving that God can't be proven? Tell me what doing so would solve, if you would please.

Sure thing...I have never claimed that I could prove that God doesn't exist. See my post above. Claiming that gods don't exist, you run into the same problem as believers...you can't PROVE your point.

As a weak atheist, I sit in the middle of a pair of scales, belief and disbelief. I observe the evidence both sides offer and weigh them as I receive them. Only when the scales tip can I choose a side. At this point in time, I do not have enough evidence, reason or proof to believe or disbelieve in the existence of God.

Hope that helps!

 

[Didasko]

Because you could have only referred to STRONG atheism, implying that I subscribed to that theory, which I do not. I don't believe in strong atheism because it has the SAME problems as religious beliefs. Weak atheism, on the other hand, doesn't create an argument, circular or otherwise.

What I posted in no way claimed that you subscribe to strong atheism. If that were the case it would have also implied that you were a proponent of macro evolution, aleins, etc. Which it did not.

 

[Dark Virtue]

I hope that DV has not been offended by any of my posts. From my point of view we are just having a good discussion here.

I have been offended by a few posts during my time here, and I'm sure, I have offended a few myself.

No worries Didasko, I haven't felt your posts were offensive. In this thread anyway

Honestly, right now I'm just tired to my core of the logical fallacies and rejection of reason and evidence.

 

[Dark Virtue]

What I posted in no way claimed that you subscribe to strong atheism. If that were the case it would have also implied that you were a proponent of macro evolution, aleins, etc. Which it did not.

Then I misinterpreted it then.

Just as long as we recognize the difference between strong and weak atheism.

 

[Azzie]

Response to # 36
Thanks a ton, DV! That definitely helps.

Response to # 37
Sorry; I was just trying to be on the safe side...

Response to # 38
"Logical fallacies and rejection of reason and evidence"...I know what you mean, DV. I really do. As a result, I honestly just gave up and decided on choosing the one that seems to embrace me better...Mainly since I'd rather be with a God that possibly exists than to be alone on my own against the rest of the world.

As I chose to return, I learned what I chose and believed; sadly, the reason I'm elated with my decision to continue to follow Jesus now is because of what you would call "anecdotal evidence."

Anyway, I posted this on the Aliens thread: I don't think it's possible to prove God with solid empirical evidence because God is not a theory or law that can be tested because God is (according to what we've been discussing) a being with a mind and will.