caddy
Puritan Board Senior
Ok, I told Bob & Rich I would funnel some real world question I get on one of the forums I have frequented for years. I have been trying to answer questions to the best of my ability. The question was posed to me IF I believe the scriptures to be correct because the scriptures say so. My reply and the individual's following are here:
In its simplest form: Yes
...
So, yes, I would say the teaching of Christ in Scripture has self-attesting authority; Christ clearly speaks with the authority of God, is the repository of knowledge, and is subject to no authority or standard more basic than Himself as "the way, the truth, and the life." He alone is adequate to witness to Himself and His word.
That answer your question?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Unbeliever's Response:
Yes.
So my follow-up question is: do you agree that your reasoning for religion is illogical, that is, your arguments contain several different logical fallacies.
By the way, I'm not passing any kind of judgment on religion here nor am I giving my opinion. I'm just going according to the common definition of logic. And am also not saying that if something is illogical then it should be rejected. So here we go:
- Affirming the Consequent, Petitio principii, Circulus in demonstrando
"The scriptures are the word of God, because the scriptures say so".
- Appeal to Consequences
"If you believe in God then you’ll find salvation. Therefore, God exists."
- Appeal to Antiquity, Argumentum ad antiquitatem
"Christianity is very old, therefore it is true in some form".
- Irrelevant Appeals, non sequitur
"Christians do good deeds, therefore God causes them to do these good deeds".
- Argument from Ignorance, Argumentum ad ignorantiam, Shifting the burden of proof
"You can't disprove God. Therefore, God exists".
- Bifurcation
"Either God created the universe or it came out of nothing, but since nothing can come from nothing, God must have created it".
- Argumentum ad verecundiam
"Einstein belived in God, therefore God exists".
Look up the definitions of these logical fallacies here, the Wikipedia or any other source. I think you fill find that your arguments fit those descriptions. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you already knew that the reasoning you present is illogical, but that you're completely ok with that. Am I right?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Feel free to respond
Link:
http://www.acurazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=366341&page=4
This does require that your register, IF you are interested in following the threads in the R&P
Thanks for the Input in advance
In its simplest form: Yes
...
So, yes, I would say the teaching of Christ in Scripture has self-attesting authority; Christ clearly speaks with the authority of God, is the repository of knowledge, and is subject to no authority or standard more basic than Himself as "the way, the truth, and the life." He alone is adequate to witness to Himself and His word.
That answer your question?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Unbeliever's Response:
Yes.
So my follow-up question is: do you agree that your reasoning for religion is illogical, that is, your arguments contain several different logical fallacies.
By the way, I'm not passing any kind of judgment on religion here nor am I giving my opinion. I'm just going according to the common definition of logic. And am also not saying that if something is illogical then it should be rejected. So here we go:
- Affirming the Consequent, Petitio principii, Circulus in demonstrando
"The scriptures are the word of God, because the scriptures say so".
- Appeal to Consequences
"If you believe in God then you’ll find salvation. Therefore, God exists."
- Appeal to Antiquity, Argumentum ad antiquitatem
"Christianity is very old, therefore it is true in some form".
- Irrelevant Appeals, non sequitur
"Christians do good deeds, therefore God causes them to do these good deeds".
- Argument from Ignorance, Argumentum ad ignorantiam, Shifting the burden of proof
"You can't disprove God. Therefore, God exists".
- Bifurcation
"Either God created the universe or it came out of nothing, but since nothing can come from nothing, God must have created it".
- Argumentum ad verecundiam
"Einstein belived in God, therefore God exists".
Look up the definitions of these logical fallacies here, the Wikipedia or any other source. I think you fill find that your arguments fit those descriptions. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you already knew that the reasoning you present is illogical, but that you're completely ok with that. Am I right?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Feel free to respond
Link:
http://www.acurazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=366341&page=4
This does require that your register, IF you are interested in following the threads in the R&P
Thanks for the Input in advance