08 Jan 09
Originally posted by rwingettThis is where you are mistaken, and is the crux of the matter.
In your claim that the bible is the word of god, all YOU have is your own authority, which is your problem. YOU say there is proof. YOU say there is evidence. YOU try to define the terms based on YOUR own authority. YOU are in error.
The word of God is the word of God because God said so in the word of God.
Your missing the whole thing. It's right there before your eyes, but you can't see it.
If I or anyone else makes a claim about something or another, it is based on my own authority or the authority of the one making the claim.
But when I say that the Bible is the word of God, that claim is based on the authority of God Himself.
Okay. So you don't know whether or not there is a God. But that doesn't change the point. It's not based on my authority that I make the claim that the Bible is the word of God. It is the word of God itself that is the authority.
This is something that seems to be too difficult for some to grasp.
Even I have trouble seeing it. The idea is based on the notion that truth is objective and externally derived. It goes against our nature to be subservient to the idea that there is a source of truth that emanates from a being greater than ourselves. So instead of looking at the issue objectively we respond negatively so as to not allow ourselves to be brought under the authority of our maker.
09 Jan 09
Originally posted by josephw"Even I have trouble seeing it." Well, if you have trouble seeing it, then how could infantile minds like ours understand?
Even I have trouble seeing it. The idea is based on the notion that truth is objective and externally derived. It goes against our nature to be subservient to the idea that there is a source of truth that emanates from a being greater than ourselves. So instead of looking at the issue objectively we respond negatively so as to not allow ourselves to be brought under the authority of our maker.
I'm not surprised you have trouble understanding your own nonsense. You string words together, and you even follow some basic grammatical rules - subject/verb agreement, proper tense - but when you read the sentence it's completely nonsensical. You disguise your nonsense by camouflaging it in forty-word long sentences. Of course you don't understand it - what you think and write possesses nothing resembling coherent thought. And holy rollers like you always play the persecution card: "I'm being attacked", "we respond negatively" - you try and pretend that it's your faith that people can't stand, when that couldn't be the furthest thing from the truth. The truth is that people like you have no social skills and well-adjusted, down-to-earth people can't stand being around you because you preach all day.
09 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie…'faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though NOT beheld.'
bong! bong! next please! move along, we don't need to see his pass, move along!
faith as defined by the bible itself, is, and pay close attention here Mr.Hamilton, i dont want you to miss anything,
'faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.'
you will of course naturally b render judgment prior to examination, is termed prejudice, and we don't want that, do we?
...… (my emphases)
I see a number of things erroneous about that definition of blind faith:
“faith is the assured expectation of ….”? “assured” by what evidence or reason or what exactly?
“…of things hoped for…” -that is the only part that is completely correct; the word “hope” is the operative word here because that is all it is.
“…the evident demonstration of realities…”? “faith” by definition doesn’t come from the “evident demonstration” of anything else it wouldn’t be “faith” now would it!
-faith is believing something purely because you want it to be true as opposed to believing something because you have a rational premise (i.e. evidence or logic) to believe it is true.
“….the evident demonstration of realities though NOT beheld….”?
-if it wasn’t for the existence of indirect observation, that would be a blatant self-contradiction for it would beg the question; how can there be an “evident” demonstration of reality if it is not seen nor observed?
But, especially in science, there is such thing as “indirect” observation. For example, one “evident” demonstration of reality is the demonstration of the existence of black holes even though we cannot directly see a black hole but can only see it indirectly through its effects. But; to “evidently” demonstrate any part of reality through indirect observation, it is not sufficient just to observe its supposed effects, it must be possible to specifically observe effects that you wouldn’t rationally predict that you be able to observe if that supposed part of reality (i.e. the hypothesis) was false.
This often works well for science but not for religion. You cannot rationally say, for example, that the existence of the universe is “evident” demonstration that god created it because we can rationally assume that the universe exists regardless of whether or not a “god” created it. Thus the observation of the existence of the universe is NOT indirect (nor direct) observation of the existence of god while the observation of the existence of the effects of black holes IS indirect observation of the existence of black holes because we wouldn’t rationally predict that we would be able to observe those effect if black holes didn’t exist.
So, to summarise, since you cannot demonstrate to me that “god” can be observed directly nor indirectly, it is rational for me to presume that it cannot be true that “god” is part of “evidently demonstration of reality”.
……evidence for example in the fulfilment of prophecies sometimes hundreds of years in advance, so accurate that sceptics have stated they were written after the events, evidence for example in the dietry laws, moral laws and laws of quarantine etc etc, ...…
Err, how is any of that “evidence” that there is a “god” as you claim?
For example, how would the stated wisdom of quarantine be “evidence” that there is a “god”?
There is no evidence that there is a god. Belief that there is a god comes from blind faith.
09 Jan 09
Originally posted by PsychoPawn"The word of God is the word of God because God said so in the word of God."
That is the best example of circular logic I've seen.
It's called a logical [b]fallacy for a reason.[/b]
i think he went around the circle twice. an accomplishment.
09 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sasquatch672I'm far from being a holy roller, and I don't concider anything said to me in this forum to be anything other than person insults, which I try not to engage in. But I do like sarcasm.
"Even I have trouble seeing it." Well, if you have trouble seeing it, then how could infantile minds like ours understand?
I'm not surprised you have trouble understanding your own nonsense. You string words together, and you even follow some basic grammatical rules - subject/verb agreement, proper tense - but when you read the sentence it's ted, down-to-earth people can't stand being around you because you preach all day.
Don't get so worked up! I do what I do. You don't like the message is what your problem is.
"The truth is that people like you have no social skills and well-adjusted, down-to-earth people can't stand being around you because you preach all day."
On the contrary, I'm one of the most down-to-earth people you'll meet. Here in this forum I pound away at what I believe is the truth, but in real life I wouldn't push on you at all. Maybe we would go to a football game, drink beer, laugh, joke, hoot and holler all day. Or maybe our families might get together and have a cook-out. Our children could play and we could get to know each other better. And play chess.
Don't judge me. Be objective about the nature of this forum. It will be better for your emotional wellbeing.
That's just a little sarcasm, for fun! 🙂
13 Jan 09
Originally posted by josephwit's ok to communicate your view on life, the universe and everything. it is ok to have a different opinion than everybody else. it is ok to fight for your opinion.
I'm far from being a holy roller, and I don't concider anything said to me in this forum to be anything other than person insults, which I try not to engage in. But I do like sarcasm.
Don't get so worked up! I do what I do. You don't like the message is what your problem is.
[b]"The truth is that people like you have no social skills and well-adjusted, ...[text shortened]... be better for your emotional wellbeing.
That's just a little sarcasm, for fun! 🙂
however it is not ok to bring false or illogical arguments to suport your opinion. it is not ok to hold as absolute and indisputable notions that have not been proven. it is not ok to ignore the other's arguments no matter how well thought are. and it is not ok to keep sticking to your opinion even when you have been proven wrong.
14 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanzi====================================
"The word of God is the word of God because God said so in the word of God."
i think he went around the circle twice. an accomplishment.
The word of God is the word of God because God said so in the word of God."
======================================
If you would bother to open it up and read it, you might see that He also ACTED in a way which gave credibiltiy to the claim.
Sure, anyone can say anything. Jesus acted in a way which lent credence to His claim.
Now if you are concerned about circular arguments why not confront those who use reason to defend reason.
Isn't that a circular argument ?
14 Jan 09
7 edits
Originally posted by jaywill….Isn't that a circular argument ?…
[b]====================================
The word of God is the word of God because God said so in the word of God."
======================================
If you would bother to open it up and read it, you might see that He also ACTED in a way which gave credibiltiy to the claim.
Sure, anyone can say anything. Jesus acted in a way which le ...[text shortened]... t those who use reason to defend reason.
Isn't that a circular argument ?[/b]
Err, no. The statement:
1, “Now if you are concerned about circular arguments why not confront those who use reason to defend reason.”
is not an “argument” but just a question with the “?” missing at the end.
In this case, the
“if…(condition)…why not …(proposed action)…”
structure of the statement is what makes it a question.
An “argument” must have a premise to justify a conclusion or a stated hypothesis -so where is the conclusion/stated hypothesis to be justified in (1)?
On the other hand, the statement:
"The word of God is the word of God because God said so in the word of God."
Is an “argument” (and a circular one and thus is logically flawed) because it is a statement with a structure of:
“….(conclusion)….because….(premise)…”.
14 Jan 09
2 edits
Dear Mr. Hamilton pants, pants and double pants, if i was not so busy playing chess i would refute every last iota of this nonsensical prejudiced uninformed twaddle (see your post as regards the definition of faith), however, fortunate for you i am kept busy with my tournaments, but when im finished your gonna be smoking like a kipper!
14 Jan 09
4 edits
==================================
….Isn't that a circular argument ?…
Err, no. The statement:
1, “Now if you are concerned about circular arguments why not confront those who use reason to defend reason.”
is not an “argument” but just a question with the “?” missing at the end.
In this case, the
“if…(condition)…why not …(proposed action)…”
structure of the statement is what makes it a question.
An “argument” must have a premise to justify a conclusion or a stated hypothesis -so where is the conclusion/stated hypothesis to be justified in (1)?
========================================
You're simply using a technicality of formal structure as an excuse to evade recognizing the circularity of using reason to defend itself.
The poster to whom I addressed the challenge knew what I meant. And though you valiantly attempt a bail out, I will let the statement stand and see how he will reply.
====================================
On the other hand, the statement:
"The word of God is the word of God because God said so in the word of God."
Is an “argument” (and a circular one and thus is logically flawed) because it is a statement with a structure of:
“….(conclusion)….because….(premise)…”.
=======================================
It is his argument for the most part.
Off the top of my head I can think of statements saying that the Word of God is pure, faithful, reliable, life giving, trustworthy. Those are biblical statements which I believe I could find easily.
However, "the word of God is the word of God because God said so in the word of God" seems not to resemble any passage I can recall.
Could you or he point to the precise biblical passage which states this for starters?
14 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanzi==================================
"The word of God is the word of God because God said so in the word of God."
i think he went around the circle twice. an accomplishment.
"The word of God is the word of God because God said so in the word of God."
i think he went around the circle twice. an accomplishment.
===========================================
WHERE in the bible is this quotation ?
"The word of God is the word of God because God said so in the word of God."
15 Jan 09
Perhaps the original poster meant to say...'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
15 Jan 09
Originally posted by owlightno, actually i tried to summarize why some people hold the bible to be entirely true.
Perhaps the original poster meant to say...'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
"The word of God(bible) is the word of god (what god says) because (here comes the why) God said so (where?) in the word of God(the bible and we have come full circle)"
Sorry, it is just one circling. i exaggerated.
So basically, some use bible to prove the bible. Well normally, one use concept1 that you know its true and through logic not feelings and/or faith try to prove concept2. but in this case concept1 is the same as concept2 so what point is there to this endeavour. we need a new concept.