The Bible and Circular Reasoning

Yeah, I know what the Genetic Fallacy is. I'm not pointing to the source in and of itself, but the predicate the sources are "amateur" is because they don't understand the Fallacy.

When Paul is an author "X", The author of the Book of Luke is an Author Y, The author of the Book of John is an Author Z, Paul is an author A, Peter is an author B, etc, it is not possible that the example you cited follows the format X -> Y -> X

Your example is just wrong, and so are the arguments of amateur atheists.

You dont' have to change it if you don't want to, that makes you look bad...not me.

[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

Sorry, you already made yourself look quite bad. Your religious fervor is blinding you to reason. If you or anyone claims that the Bible is the Word of God because it says so in the Bible, they are demonstrating classic circular reasoning . You can argue all day long that the religious zealots who wrote the Bible all "confirmed" each other, but it is lacking any external verification, which is the reason for the circularity. The often stated or otherwise implied claim that the reason they trust in the Bible in the first place is because it is the Word of God. Perhaps you are okay with the claim that the Koran is the Word of Allah because it says so in the Koran. Whether you do or you don't, you have some serious logical inconsistency problems.

Yeah, "if' someone argues that, and nobody argues that. First, nowhere in any of the independent books, is there a single sentence that says "The Bible is the Word of God", so your entire narrative and explanation here is some straw man. The notion of Verbum Dei is inferred, and never is the reasoning given "The Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it's the word of God".

Your example is no more sensical than an example that states "The encyclopedia is true, because it says so in the encyclopedia".  Like WTF? "The Encyclopedia" is multiple authors, independent and nowhere in "The Encyclopedia" does it make such a claim. 

Maybe your third cousin makes uses this sort of reasoning so you used it in a site that's supposedly dedicated to logic? If you wonder why nobody takes academics seriously any longer, with some tragic consequences, this is why. This is pure BS, and you probably indoctrinate oblivious kids with it. 

If you're interested in making a site that's actually meant to illustrate the point in some rational way, why not use examples that are actually air tight and consistent? This silly example reeks of an agenda. 

You really need to learn about fallacies. If not from this site, find another.

Uh ok. Well, The Bible as "the word of God" as circular reasoning isn't one of them, and it makes the site look unreliable. Circular reasoning pertains to pointing to the same assertion in the antecedent and the consequent, or even rephrasing it (such as in Begging the Question). X "Why do you think morality is objective"? ->  Y "Because it is clear that something ontologically exists apart from human experience that is right or wrong". But Y is synonymous with X.

There's nothing circular about stating "The Bible is the word of God" and there's certainly nowhere in the Bible that "says so". 

Not only is modern academia's agenda pathetic and lame, it's utterly irrational, and that's easy to prove.

There's nothing circular about stating "The Bible is the word of God" and there's certainly nowhere in the Bible that "says so".  

That's not the fallacy. The circularity is in stating "The Bible is the word of God because it says so in the Bible. "
 
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. Timothy 3:16-17

Not only is modern academia's agenda pathetic and lame, it's utterly irrational, and that's easy to prove.

Since you have a PHD after your name, I agree with you 100% on the above.

Correct, I choose to identify as a PhD, therefore I am a PhD.

Ok, great, then in such a case, as in Timothy you just cited, if you were even remotely trying to be accurate, you would state something like "Here in Timothy  Paul (or whoever wrote it) is arguing that the Hebrew scriptures of the Torah, are God breathed." (as the New Test had not even been canonized yet, and the Gospels probably did not yet even exist, so he could not have been referring to them).

If you were to ask Paul how he knew this (which you cannot), and he said "because it says so in the scriptures' THEN you would have a circular argument. 

Other than that, your entire narrative fails. 

[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

Yes that's a circular reasoning and too is the claim that bible is true because it says so.

And what's more, even if your 3rd cousin, whom doesn't exist, did in fact argue "The Bible is the word of God, because it says so in the Bible",  STILL your argument and example fails.

IF it says that "The Bible is the word of God" (in the Gospel according to Luke) because "it says so in the Bible" (according to the Hebrew scriptures), then this is not circular, but independent assertions of a proposition.

The Bible obviously never states "The Bible is the word of God", but either way, the reasoning fails. 

No it says also what ever your independent assertions are just circular reasoning nothing more and it's just like saying when you commit fallacy of composition rather than admitting it you just tell it's an argument and not a fallacy.

Sorry, your example violates your own criteria.  It would be like putting the biographies of Plutarch, the histories of Tacitus, the Jewish histories of Josephus into a single binder and calling it "Ancient History" and claiming that it is circular reasoning when Tacitus verifies what Josephus said, because it's all in the same book called "Ancient History". The abstract binder "Ancient History" has multiple, independent books written.

Most rational people call this independent verification when a man named Josephus verifies what a man named Plutarch claimed, or a man named Paul verified what a man named Luke claimed. Putting all the evidence into one binder and "canonizing" it, changes nothing.

This is the opposite of circular reasoning. The author X (Paul) verifies the account of author Y (the author of the book of Matthew) who verifies the account of the author Z (book of Luke) who verifies the account of author A (the book of Hebrews) who verifies the account of author B (author of the Book of John), who verifies the account of the author of 1 and 2 Peter, etc etc.

Only at a laughable modern day secular fake "education, with paper PhDs does that become an example of "circular reasoning". And yes, that's an ad hominem. 

You simply don't understand what circular reasoning is, or you have some other motive. Let's see if you have the intellectual integrity to fix it. I predict that you probably do not, which is why almost nobody takes academia seriously any longer. 

Can you explain what is as homenium here?

Are you an idiot? Your entire argument is red hearing. You are going to history and that's not the issue you pointed out and the claim is that Bible is word of God because bible says so and you are pointing out ancient people it verify those fucking book bla bla bla.

However that doesn't change the fact that "Circular Reasoning" is SELF referencing, not one book referring to OTHER BOOKS being "God's word" and vice versa, plus none of those books has God claiming that it is His word within the book, like his silly Prince of Nigeria example who references HIMSELF, in the email, and in the case of the Bible it is SOMEBODY ELSE claiming it is God's word, in several other books.

In other words, you nor he have any idea what you are talking about.

[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

Again an idiotic claim, using examples about god doesn't mean they disrespect anything and no examples is stupid and if I just gave an example that your brother died by car accident is just to give examples and not to be taken seriously, your entire agrument is bullshit.

Whoa whoa whoa. I understand where you are coming from, and I also disagree with this question asker, but calling them an idiot won’t accomplish anything.

Yes that accomplish everything because I gave reasons why he is an idiot he is stupid and he is stupid because he lacks common sense he thinks No bennett example as circular reasoning is wrong while it's just used as example rather then telling Bible teaches circular reasoning.

You bring up a technical fair point, but it doesn't change my major point that it is a nonsensical example.

"The Bible" is a label we gave 66 different books by a process called "canonisation". There are other ancient manuscripts who claim that God revealed Himself through Jesus Christ (I'm not referring to the heretical Gnostic writing a 100 - 400 years later). All of these, the canonized, and non-canonized writings claim the same thing. The "Bible" is not a single source. 

Let's take argument 1, the one we both agree Dr Bennett was using as an illustration. 

He would have to say something like "The Book of Romans is the Word of God because God tells us it is, in the Book of Romans" or "The Book of Luke is the Word of God because God tells us it is, in the Book of Luke"

That's non-sensical. Nobody claims that Romans was written by "God". There is no denomination on earth who teaches this, and history verifies, unequivocally, that St Paul wrote the book of Romans (though some other of Paul's epistles may be authored by others, Romans is agreed to be Pauls). Teaching that God personally wrote the Book of Romans would be heresy, in every denomination that exists, both Protestant and Catholic.  

God doesn't tell us that 1 Corinthians is "the Word of God", nor the Gospel of Matthew, nor the Gospel of Luke. 

The author of 2 Timothy tells us that "all scripture is God breathed", but that refers to the Jewish scripture that preceded it, because there was no New Testament Bible that existed at the writing of 2 Timothy. 

Christian churches and denominations INFER that the Bible is "God's Word" via inspiration of multiple authors. Once again, the arguments and criteria for Canonization can be studied by anybody interested in the topic. You can agree with it, you can disagree with it, but it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "circular reasoning". Only a very ignorant person would make that assertion (ignorant on that topic). Nowhere do they make the arguments that he cited.

Bennett uses this amateur atheist argument as his example, and then goes on to say that people "base their lives" on his straw man argument, on a topic he clearly doesn't understand. 

If he's interested in teaching the actual topic, it's best to use concise, air-tight examples to illustrate the point, not examples that are provably wrong. 

I would like to see proof that those books are in fact written by different authors and also proof that those are valid sources. For instance, if I write a book saying “my parents books are true, and also 1+1=3”, and my parents write a book saying “My kids book is true, and also 3-2=145” that doesn’t make 1+1=3 or 3-2=145.

What you're asking for literally makes no sense. There's absolutely no scholar on earth who thinks the Bible was written at the same time by the same people. The "proof" is that we can date old testament books in the dead sea scrolls to before the new testament was ever written. We can employ what historians call "textual criticism" and determine that different authors wrote different books, and in different languages and the manuscripts are found in different locations. 

This is like asking for "proof" that Plutarch wrote Parallel Lives and Tacitus wrote Annals, and that it wasn't  really  the same guy.

You're not serious? There's nobody on earth who thinks the Bible is all one source. Various places in the New Test refer to the Old Test as The word of God or "inspired", and through the various manuscripts from the early Church we can determine that the earliest Christians considered the New Testament the same. Literally thousands of early Church manuscripts exist that support The New Testament being thought of as inspired by God by the early Church. 

I never said a thing about if the Bible is true or not. I said there's absolutely no chance the Bible is an example "circular reasoning" and it's pretty much the dumbest example ever.

Right, but for whatever reason you're all not understanding the Bible is not "a book" but 66 historical narratives, ancient biographies, poems, myths, prophecies etc all put in the same Bible. Absolutely none of them say "This book (like 2 Timothy) is the word of God, because it says so in this Book", nor does anybody say that. 

The entire example was an ignorant rant, and can be taken verbatim from an amateur atheist website.

[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

The literal translation of Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía, "the books". Each historical narratives, ancient biographies, poems, myths, prophecies etc can be consider a book which is bound together to form a single book called the bible. They was not bound together until later. The first attempt to create a bible was not until AD 140 and only had 10 books. Do some research on the bible cannon.

Uh yeah, I know it wasn't bound together until later, which is why it isn't possible that it's circular reasoning. In 2 Timothy for example, it refers the Torah (a bunch of other individual books, not itself) as "God breathed". It is not possible that it is circular reasoning (since it involves 1 author referring to multiple OTHER books). Or in 2 Peter, where the various OTHER books (specifically the books of the Prophets) are referred to as Gods word, or in Deut where it refers to the specific commandments and Law (not the section that is the historical narrative) as Gods word, or whatever example you want to use. They are ALL one author, in one book, referring to another book, written by another author, as "God's word". 

Only an a fool would claim that this is an example "Circular Reasoning" and stick to their lame, simpleton indoctrination after being corrected. Unfortunately academia is literally full of such fools with the letters "PhD" after their name. 

Are you an idiot? You are just picking things that are irrelevant to what you asked and your idiotic comment of your will never end. Your replies are just red hearing you asked bible is the word of God because bible says so in original question and your fu**ing comments are just ignorant

No dude, the entire basis of "circular reasoning" is that there's a single source referring back to itself. Pointing out the fact that these are 66 sources, not a single source, is not a "red herring".

Good luck trying to figure out what you're talking about, but I'm not holding out hope...

Are you an idiot? The reason why I reffer your agrument as red hearing is because you are avoiding your original question you said Bible is the word of God therefore it's a word of god and you have problems with that and then you bring your history of bible and hence avoided the issue

[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

"1 author referring to multiple OTHER books). Or in 2 Peter, where the various OTHER books (specifically the books of the Prophets) are referred to as Gods word, or in Deut where it refers to the specific commandments and Law (not the section that is the historical narrative) as Gods word, or whatever example you want to use. They are ALL one author, in one book, referring to another book, written by another author, as "God's word". " Most people do not see it as individual books but as one books. By the way you are reasoning it out maybe it is not but like I said most people do not get that technical into it. It seems more of a technically based on definition. 

Yeah it's a logical fallacy because when an email says it's true therefore it's true

Right, but not 66 other emails with other authors of the emails that say it's true. They could all be right, they could all be wrong, that is immaterial, but it isn't circular reasoning.

Man, PhD, not PhD, I'm just not dealing with very intelligent people when I converse with those "educated" in a modern secular institution. This is ubiquitous. Do you understand the difference between the numbers 66 and 1? Or the difference between a "self" reference and a reference to "something else"?

[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

No, that is circular reasoning just because someone says he is right doesn't mean he is right and that's exactly what circular reasoning is at least read about it also what do you mean?

LOL. "Trusting someone" or not "Trusting someone" has nothing whatsoever to do with circular reasoning. You have no idea what circular reasoning is, nor does the author of this site.

If you want to believe referring to the Bible as "The word of God" is circular reasoning, at least in America, you have a right to be wrong, and you are. Just live life, and enjoy that brilliant mind of yours.

[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

Bullshit! That's not trusting that's circular reasoning and you have never read anything about circular reasoning and the claim is that email is true because it says it's true and no evidence or proof is provided why it is true and that's different from saying I trust in my mother because of various experiences and reasoning and there is nothing that proves why we should trust that gmail. And what you reffer to trust is blind belief you trust him because of no reason or evidence and that's different from saying that the reason is provided if it's because of trust bible because it says so is circular reasoning and you trust your bible because of no reason is another thing and your claim is weak analogy

Good sir, 

I must admit, it is very difficult to follow the posts that you make. They are full of run-on sentences and grammatical errors making reading the comments nearly impossible to understand. I understand your fervor in defending your position, but if you are looking to have a productive discussion, I would ask that you organize your thoughts and add some punctuation into your sentences. I am not trying to attack you or your argument, just trying to understand what you are saying. You could very well be right, but the body of your comments do not add weight to the argument.

All the best

Huh? I will just right normally as long as you understand I don't care about grammar at all

I have assumed that English is not your first language, but if it is (or even if not), please do spend more time constructing your posts. I don't answer many of them because they are too difficult for me to understand (grammatically). I can't make sense of what you are trying to say.

That, my friend, is the crux of my reply. I do not understand your posts. Some focus on grammar and punctuation would definitely assist in making your point more clear and concise. Again, not attacking just trying to understand what you are saying. 

no, it has nothing to do whether Bible is circular reasoning or not it is an example you are just talking nonsense