The Official God FAQ

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


For Humanists, a dignity and respect for fellow-men *is* the reason. That might seem like an alien concept, a cop-out or a circular argument to you but it doesn't to me. In fact it is inspiring.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Zanarkand


I believe that the writers of the Bible were guided by God because The Bible is a book that God gave men as an invitation to get to know Him. And so if there is something in the Bible that is wrong, that would make God fallible, and He's not.

Circular logic...neural short circuit...brain overheating... :headexplodes:

[Jon Miller]

I think his reasoning is like this:

1. Christians are followers of God.
2. Christians get to know God through the Bible.
3. Therefore the writers of the Bible were guided by God.

Now this pressuposes that Christians are followers of God, and that God exists. No matter what, at some point religion (or atheism) comes down to a question of beleif (or assumptions).

JM

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I think his reasoning is like this:

1. Christians are followers of God.
2. Christians get to know God through the Bible.
3. Therefore the writers of the Bible were guided by God.


JM

OK, I guess that's a triangle, but it still ends where it started and my head still explodes.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini
OK, I guess that's a triangle, but it still ends where it started and my head still explodes.

While I don't know what your beliefs are, I'm willing to bet I can show you that they're circular (or triangular), too.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Lorizael


While I don't know what your beliefs are, I'm willing to bet I can show you that they're circular (or triangular), too.

I realize that the answer to "Why do you believe the bible is the word of god?" or "Why do you believe there is no god?" always boils down to belief (as JM said). Aruging that you believe in the divinity of teh bible because god told men to write it so they could get to know him, is no argument at all. It's a belief system, and that is fine, but it's not an explanation or an argument. In order to have an intelligent discussion, each participant must be willing and able to at least attempt to approach the problem from the other person's point of view. For an excellent example of how such a discussion can be had on the topic of religion -- see Cort and Elok's discussion.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Lorizael


While I don't know what your beliefs are, I'm willing to bet I can show you that they're circular (or triangular), too.

Suppose he's an atheist, why would his logic be circular?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini
It's a belief system, and that is fine, but it's not an explanation or an argument.

Yes... my point is that you more than likely make the same mistake in any explanation or argument you use for constructing your worldview.

For an excellent example of how such a discussion can be had on the topic of religion -- see Cort and Elok's discussion.

Oh, you don't have to tell me. I always read what those two write.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Traianvs
Suppose he's an atheist, why would his logic be circular?

Atheism by itself does not fall pray to circular logic. And Atheism as a lack of belief in god is perfectly valid. Atheism as the positive belief that there is no God, however, has some logical problems. And the ethical systems that many atheists use to govern their behavior are almost always filled with logical inconsistencies, some of which are quite likely to be reminiscent of circular logic.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini


OK, I guess that's a triangle, but it still ends where it started and my head still explodes.

Hod does it end where it started? To end where it started requires:

4. Christians are followers of God because they follow the Bible.

JM

[Jon Miller]

There is always an assumption somewhere. I didn't follow the rest of his argument. But for example, you could do:

I. I assume that there is a God.
II. Looking about, the Christian God seems to be the God I beleive in.
1. Christians are followers of God.
2. Christians get to know God through the Bible.
3. Therefore the writers of the Bible were guided by God.
X. The Bible is something to follow/from God/etc.

The assumptions here is a beleif in God (the Christian God). It isn't an assumption or beleif that the Bible is something to follow. That follows logically from the beleif in the Christian God.

The issue always comes down to assumptions (otherwise known as beleifs). If you can't understand someone elses assumptions, you can't understand their argument. And you can't poke holes in someone elses argument if you don't hold to their assumptions (or at least pretend to, for the sake of argument).

You will never get to
X. I beleive in God
from an atheists assumptions.

JM

[DirtyMartini]

It explains a belief in the divine nature of the bible by presupposing the existence of god.

edit: oops, you beat me to it.

I agree, see my response to Lori. I have absolutely no problem with it as a belief, but it was presented in response to a question as if it was a logical argument, which it most certainly is not.

Look, I fully understand that beleif in god is based on faith, and that this cannot be explained logically. I would never try to argue the existence of god with a true believer, because there is simply no argument that can address the belief/faith issue.

But Zanarkand tries to formulate an explanation for the factual nature of the bible, but, in so doing, presupposes the existence of god. This clearly demonstrates that he is either unaware of his audience or is unable to see the issue from any perspective but his own.

I mean, I can't start a discussion with che or kid by saying "Now since the free market is the only true and just economic system..."

[Jon Miller]

By the way, this assumption thing is true in any area of human difference. From communism/capitalism to empericism to religion.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini
It explains a belief in the divine nature of the bible by presupposing the existence of god.

And what is wrong with that? If you don't beleive in God, how can the Bible (or anything) be divinely inspired/etc?

JM

[Lorizael]

Assumptions are the devil, JM. They ruin every argument. There is only one valid premise from which to construct a worldview, only one that does not rest on unprovable assumptions.