The Bible

[Dead Sun]

Does anyone else think that using the bible as proof of Gods existence is just circular? But if the argument leads onto the credibility of the bible, then its ok.
e.g
Dave: I believe in God
Dom: Why?
Dave: Because the Bible says too.

If anyone can give me credible proof as to how that is not circular, i shall take it back.

[Thanatos]

It is a circular argument.

[Astaroth]

It is of course indeed a circular argument.

[The Dude]

I believe it's a circular argument.

[Mathias]

"God exists because the bible says so, and the bible is correct as it comes from God (or is inspired by God etc.; whichever variant you choose)" is about as circular as it can get.

[Garrigan]

[Copperknickers II]

It's not so much circular as contrary to the entire concept of 'prove'.

[Theseus1234]

it is a circular argument 100% of the way
how does this "dave" know that the bible is true? from his parents most likely. what do his parents believe in? god. why? the bible tells them too. how did they know the bible is true? well their parents...and AAAALLLL the way down the line until you arrive at jesus...stupid jesus

[basics]

There are two ways of understanding the Bible or should I say reading the Bible, the first, if an unbeliever, is by the dead letter. In other words it appears just stories that look contrary one to the other dependent very much on what appears circular argument because it refers to itself as authorative.

However the second is only by experiencing the revelation given by God to them that He chooses whereby what seems contrary is opened out into something way beyond the dead letter through actions happening beyond what the recipient expects. In other words what it contains becomes factual and experimental to that person.

Not only that it contains the supernatural, but that the new believer also experiences the supernatural, not just on an odd occasion, but as everyday life. So for the unbeliever to try to make comment on what he or she does not experience, it is done from ignorance, from blindness, usually resulting in some sort of mockery.

To them that are converted, born again, it is a living testimony to their regeneration for without it there would have been none and couldn't be. Why so? Because it says of itself that it is the power, mark that word, power of God to save, to regenerate them that are bound in blindness. There isn't any other.

Now some may argue that is not the case for there are many ways to heaven but that doesn't stand up when measured by Scripture. Again why so? Because God, as is written, has a very precise method for the salvation of any, these being simple yet unchangeable and it is when regenerate this is among the first things revealed to the recipient.

Then and only then do all these books become one vast panoramic story of God, His will, and His people's participation within make sense because what is written within becomes experimental to them without who are regenerate. Some may appeal that, since Darwin, God is dead, but nothing could be further from the truth.

[gambit]

Does anyone else think that using the bible as proof of Gods existence is just circular? But if the argument leads onto the credibility of the bible, then its ok.
e.g
Dave: I believe in God
Dom: Why?
Dave: Because the Bible says too.

If anyone can give me credible proof as to how that is not circular, i shall take it back.

Hmm..

Seems like a perfectly credible argument to me. In fact, it makes so much sense it makes me want to burn anyone who doesnt believe it...

[Garrigan]

Seems like a perfectly credible argument to me. In fact, it makes so much sense it makes me want to burn anyone who doesnt believe it...

Makes even more sense if you add in that you can add a bit in that makes people give you money for nice new buildings and decor.

[gambit]

Makes even more sense if you add in that you can add a bit in that makes people give you money for nice new buildings and decor.

That's terrible! Thats disgusting!

Have you ever considered a career in the clergy?

[Rich86]

In other words what it contains becomes factual and experimental to that person.

This is all incredibly conveniant though isn't it? It all boils down to the classic; if you do not think what I do about X, then you are doing it wrong.

So, anytime you question any other 'holy book' would you accept what you have just said as evidence that their holy book was in fact divine, written by god, sacred, etc?

So for the unbeliever to try to make comment on what he or she does not experience, it is done from ignorance, from blindness, usually resulting in some sort of mockery.

You don't agree with me so you must be doing it wrong

[basics]

Rich86,

There aren't any other Holy books. There are only other gospels that are no Gospels at all and they contain a curse. I know that you would like there to be some to make your argument stick but unfortunately that's not possible.

But just so that you understand, Holy means righteous and righteousness comes from God as people are made regenerate through the blood of Jesus Christ that is unto all and upon all them that have believed, do believe and will eventually believe. Of course you can't do it, that speaks for itself, for could you, you wouldn't be having this argument.

It is not a question of doing it wrong. It is a question of God giving you the newness of life to do it right. And, I have told you before and say again, anything that does not measure up with Scripture accordingly is not Holy, so what others deem to be is in fact not. Is that clear enough? What you assume Holiness is and what it actually is are two different things so before using the usual silly sayings remember you begin on the outside.

[Mathais]

I agree it is a circular argument as a christain I know that when someone tells me that god is real just because the bible say so just seems pointless. I always have to ask how dose it and how did you come know him by just knowing that it says it? I found out by asking and actually opening my eyes and seeing hey you really are there.

[gambit]

In seriousness, the only people who use that argument as genuine credibility are fools. Too often are most religious folks stereotyped as so just cause some gallant loud mouth who thinks he knows everything just ignores reason in face of his "r3l1gous Sk33lz"

Most intelligent people who are religious will debate it with some logic and open-mindedness, realized they simply have the faith to believe.

[MaximiIian]

Does anyone else think that using the bible as proof of Gods existence is just circular? But if the argument leads onto the credibility of the bible, then its ok.

Yeah, it's a crappy circular argument. Even the Christians know that, and its their book.

[Rich86]

There aren't any other Holy books.

The Qu'ran? The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

There are only other gospels that are no Gospels at all and they contain a curse.

Might they not say similar things about your holy book?

But just so that you understand, Holy means righteous and righteousness comes from God

Might not followers of Vishnu / any other random deity say that righteous and righteousnes comes from their God - not yours?

Of course you can't do it, that speaks for itself, for could you, you wouldn't be having this argument.

You don't agree with me so you must be doing it wrong

And, I have told you before and say again, anything that does not measure up with Scripture accordingly is not Holy, so what others deem to be is in fact not

Right so their proofs are not proofs because they clash with your proofs? As I have asked many times, might not followers of other faiths use a similar argument towards you, one that I doubt you would accept even for a second?

Is that clear enough?

Oh I understand quite clearly what you're saying I just think it's silly.

so before using the usual silly sayings remember you begin on the outside.

Right I'm not part of your club so I can't comment on it's workings? Well you're not part of the Muslim club so you're not in a position to comment on the validity of that faith. You're not part of the Judaism club so you're not in a position to comment on the validity of that faith. You're not part of the Flying Spaghetti Monster club so you're not in a position to comment on the validity of that faith. You're not part of the Hindu club so you're not in a position to comment on the validity of that faith. You're not part of the Sikh club so you're not in a position to comment on the validity of that faith. You're not part of the Scientology club so you're not in a position to comment on the validity of that faith. You're not part of the Thor club so you're not in a position to comment on the validity of that faith.

Basics the same arguments you use could easily be used by followers of other religions - they don't stand up to even minor scrutiny.

[Dead Sun]

*steps in here*
Has anyone else ever noticed how God contradicts himself in his own book. I mean, Christians will probably agree with each other that God is Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolnt and so on. But god cant be Omniscient, because he seemed highly surprised when Adam and Eve betrayed him. Strange aint it? A God who knows anything and everything didnt know they were hungry (i know that aint true, but still he didnt know). Also, christians believe that Luicfer was an Angel and contested for a position equal to Gods, yet God didnt immediately strike him down!? He had to fight a massive and time consuming battle. How very non-ominipotent. Im not sure, either, but some Christians believe God is the Sustainer, the anchor to this universe, but this is also a contradiction because God gave us freewill, the will to act without God as an anchor or a guide.

Mull upon this and ether support it or nnot. If you dont support the, as Rich89 says, You must be doing it wrong. Nah, im joking, but if anyone can tear it apart mercilessly without me being able to make a comeback, then it shall be highly useful for my philosophy classes.

[Samuel Adams]

There has been various archaeological finds that coincide with what the Bible says. For instance people discounted the Bible as a story for some time due to the Hittites, who had 'never existed.' Yet, archaeologists found the Hittites some time later.

The Grand Canyon is told to be carved over eons by a trickling stream. Yet, the sedimentary layers show a very fast progression, and many Geologists who have studied the Grand Canyon have become creationists on that note.

They've found tablets in Egypt talking about the Jewish Slaves.

A Doctor was allowed in to see the latest caveman find, who supposedly died at age 40. The Orthodondist first found that the reason the caveman's jaw jutted out was that the archeologists had it popped out of place. The teeth remaining in the skull were in perfect position (meaning he would not have needed braces). Most importantly, the eyebrow bones were jutting out much more than most people's do. Anyone who's seen elderly men like my great uncle have seen that their eyebrows are larger. This is dew to chewing. At the size of this supposedly barbaric, sub human's eyebrows he'd have been ~120 at the time of death.

If nothing else, the Old Testament is a great history book. Religious debate's not my strong point, but I suppose it's always easier to say nothing exists and to believe in nothing, than to actually try to find something to believe in.