Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Beware of circular reasoning!

Carry_Your_Name

YOU ARE BREAKING TOS RULES.
RETURN TO TOPIC OR A THREAD BAN WILL ENSUE.

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST IN THIS THREAD.
USE TALK TO STAFF IF NECESSARY.

RESPONDING TO A MODERATOR IN AN OPEN THREAD WILL RESULT IN A BAN.
 
You're deflecting/missing my point. Please read my posts more carefully.

Whether or not people hold today to ancient mistaken notions about the Bible, if they are lacking knowledge on a subject upon which they are attempting to hold forth, they are correctly described as ignorant.



Nope. I'm simply accurately describing an actual state-of-affairs in the ignorant person's knowledge base.

You seem to be confusing the colloquially-pejorative sense in which "ignorant" is used that conveys the sense of stupidity and/or rudeness with the term's more formal definition: Lacking knowledge. I'm using the latter definition, not the former in describing a person as ignorant. As such, the description is not an ad hominem when it accurately describes the level of knowledge a person has on a particular subject.



If a person lacks knowledge on a particular subject, then, on that subject, they are ignorant. This is the simple fact of the matter, which fact cares not at all for what you might feel about it.

At no time in describing a person who lacks knowledge have I ever said that they are themselves "inferior" or "beneath me." Their level of knowledge might be inferior, but this doesn't make the person, as a person, inferior. Obviously. Why, then, are you ascribing this thinking to me when it is not at all in evidence in what I've written? Again, it looks to me very much like you're projecting here, jumping to unwarranted conclusions on the basis of your own personal sensitivities rather than on the actual content of my posts.

As well, I've never said an ignorant person can't express their opinion in conversation with me, only that they ought to refrain from making comment from ignorance. What I think folk entirely ignorant of the Bible ought to do and what they are free to do (and do often, unfortunately) are two very different things. In any case, I've had countless discussions online with very biblically-ignorant people, so the fact that they are unqualified by their ignorance to talk with me about the Bible has been no barrier to these discussions. Usually, though, they end up just exposing the depth of their ignorance, which isn't much fun for them. This is, though, what happens when one wants to talk on matters about which they know almost nothing.



I think our exchange in this thread ought to give you some idea what I'd do.

Anyway, nothing of what you describe above of what the hypothetical physicist says makes any knowledge claim concerning the contents of the Bible. If he wants to explain what prompted him to move toward Christ, great! But if he wants to add that he thinks Jesus wasn't really God-in-the-flesh and that the Bible says so, well, that's when our difference in Bible knowledge will kick in and make things...awkward for the physicist.



Yup. Sometimes, though, it's the immature believer, full of Self and pride, unwilling to acknowledge their immaturity and corresponding ignorance, who is puffed up and profoundly spiritually-blind. I've met more of these than the sort you've described above.



Well, simply study a bit about epistemology. Learn something of the basics of logic. Bone up on interpretive hermeneutics. Doing so will satisfy your request more fully than I'm willing to do typing in this thread in my spare time.



It seems to me that, of the two of us, you have more cause to heed your warning, here. It's not only knowledge that puffs up.



It's...interesting that you do here - and earlier - the very thing you were clamoring against: Ad hominem. Funny how it's okay for you to attack the man while you criticize another for doing so.

Regardless, I'm not vain and proud, only factual. I make no excuses for being so.



Are you now the Final Arbiter of these perspectives on prophecy, soteriology, the nation of Israel and the Church, etc.? I'm sure the amillenialist wouldn't appreciate you calling their viewpoint "heresy." Nor would those who hold to the Secret Rapture view. In any case, I'm not taking the red herrings you're offering.

Continued below.
Wow. Not only are you hypocritical about ad hominem attacks, but now you're misquoting me!

What I actually wrote was:

"But if I'm speaking with someone who is entirely ignorant of the Bible, or nearly so, from them I will learn nothing about the Bible. This was my point, not that, having studied the Bible for a long time, there is nothing more to learn from any other domain of knowledge."

Your misquote above made it seem I wrote the exact opposite of what I actually wrote. Note the enlarged and bolded word in the quotation above that indicates the opposite of your misquote and accompanying rhetorical question.



See? You just aren't actually understanding what I'm writing to you. Noting a person's lack of knowledge - their ignorance - on some subject, does not equate to deriding them. Are you twelve years old? Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?



Well, if you hope to, you'll have to use some other portion of Scripture because Acts 2 doesn't help your case any.

And no, I'm not guilty of your Strawman of my remarks on the chapter.



*Sigh* Just more ad hominem...

The account in Acts 2 says what it says. And what it says mentions nothing but what I've pointed out. I'm not being "closeminded" in pointing this out, but merely careful with the text of Scripture - as you should be.

Also, I never said you "made up" anything about a church service you attended. And what I found "bizarre" wasn't this service you attended (though, it might have been), but that you would attempt to make a parallel between it and what happened in Acts 2, though the account in Acts 2 offers nothing about a "vibe" or a sense of "invasion" by the Spirit who "permeated" the room.



Pot and kettle, fella. Pot and kettle.



Do I ask for anything in this quotation, as you asserted that I did? Nope. I simply stated a biblical point of view.



Yup.



More ad hominem, then. Well, at least you're consistent in this...



I never wrote that doubt and confusion never occur, only that, when they do, they signal the need for further spiritual growth. It is true that, by means of doubt, God will prompt His children to investigate Him and His truth further, more deeply. But this is to the end of eradicating doubt and confusion. A perennially doubting and confused Christian hasn't met with God in consistent, daily fellowship; for if they had, that fellowship would have dissolved their doubts and confusion. And this lack of consistent, daily fellowship with God is always a mark of spiritual immaturity.



You think that a settled confidence in God and His truth is "pride and arrogance"? This says a great deal about where you're at with Him...



And...more ad hominem. Clearly, if anyone's astride a "high horse," it's you. Goodness. It's always amazing to me how the thing of which a person is most glaringly guilty is the thing they're quickest to criticize in others (whether it's there or not).

You have no idea of the content of my life as a believer, not the slightest hint of what has transpired in my life. And yet, from your vantage point atop your high horse, you seem to think you see the full scope of my life and thought. What was that you were saying about hubris and arrogance? You might want to prayerfully ponder Romans 2:17-24. It applies as well to Gentiles of today as to the Jews of Paul's time.
Sir, calm down, you're getting upset. The topic of this thread is a warning about circular reasoning, specifically quoting the bible to defend the bible. We may have disagreements on a lot of things, but I didn't expect a spirituall mature follower who claimed to have had half a century's walk with the Lord would take it so personally, and I'm sorry to see that you perceived a challenge to your view and a critique at your use of "ignorance" as an ad hominem attack at your character.

To be crystal clear, one of my intentions in this thread is to emphasize on the importance of testimony, which is very differnt from biblical knowledge. The bible is not only true, but TIMELESS because of our testimony of its fulfillment in our lives. Jesus once asked Peter, "who do YOU say that I am," that is Peter's testimony; He didn't ask what the OT Scripture says he is, which would be knowledge. May God bless you and bring you peace, so we may resume this conversation in a civil, respectful manner. Sometimes it's not about right or wrong, but polite or rude.
 
Sir, calm down, you're getting upset. The topic of this thread is a warning about circular reasoning, specifically quoting the bible to defend the bible. We may have disagreements on a lot of things, but I didn't expect a spirituall mature follower who claimed to have had half a century's walk with the Lord would take it so personally, and I'm sorry to see that you perceived a challenge to your view and a critique at your use of "ignorance" as an ad hominem attack at your character.

To be crystal clear, one of my intentions in this thread is to emphasize on the importance of testimony, which is very differnt from biblical knowledge. The bible is not only true, but TIMELESS because of our testimony of its fulfillment in our lives. Jesus once asked Peter, "who do YOU say that I am," that is Peter's testimony; He didn't ask what the OT Scripture says he is, which would be knowledge. May God bless you and bring you peace, so we may resume this conversation in a civil, respectful manner. Sometimes it's not about right or wrong, but polite or rude.
THE ABOVE EARNS YOU A 3 DAY FORUM BAN.
 
More often humans don't know what they are talking about. We often overestimated human capability.

Is it Biden or Trump won the majority vote?
Subconsciously we evaluate the situation by means of whether information are conveyed in a legitimate way. If it is conveyed legitimately, it stands as a candidate of truth. In the case of Biden vs. Trump, information on both sides are conveyed legitimately, both can stand as a candidate of truth. In this case, humans lack the ability to distinguish further but have to choose one out of the two even with the full awareness that one out of the two must be a lie.

History is a scarce recording of human deeds. We don't record humans on a 7/24 and for everyone basis. Under most circumstances pieces of information remain the sole testimony on a certain event. If you choose to reject history humans have no history. It is because history comes scarcely that it's not circular when using history to back up history. It's rather due to the fact that we lack capability to record ancient history that resources of ancient events come very limited.

The nature of history is that eyewitness account of testimonies are gathered by a historian and by his best judgment that the stories (history = his story) are credible and decided to record it down. Both these eyewitnesses and historians are long dead, while humans lack the ability to upkeep the information. That's actually why we don't have any manuscripts of the Bible which can be considered as original. On the other hand, secular authorities don't convey divine information. Bible remains mostly the sole source of God's information. I hinted here that for legitmate conveying an authority is required who is responsible for examining the credibility of the stories from the supposed eyewitnesses (i.e., the OT prophets) and recorded them down. We humans don't have a second account of history on Israel and on the deeds of God as witnessed by humans. We have only one account, which is the Holy Bible, for the recording of God's deeds as witnessed by humans (i.e., by God's chosen prophets). As a result, at the best of human capability all we can do is to choose to reference the Bible (or not) in terms of getting to the truth of God.

In terms of getting to the truth of Biden and Trump you can choose, that is legitimately, to believe what is said by CNN or Fox News as both of them presenting the 'facts' legitimately.

Legitimacy is tied to many factors or characteristics. Truth is always conveyed in a form a human testimony. An authority exists to examine the credibility of the testimonies then for a audient-facing mass media to convey it. Vote counting is done by the frontline vote counters, result is reckoned by a government authority then passed to CNN/Fox News (US facing mass media) to do the broadcasting. Similarly, testimones from the prophets are reckoned by God's chosen people Israel then passed to Judaism for God's truth to convey from generation to generation.
 
Last edited:
Hey All,
I have thought about this.
How can we explain that God exists apart from the Bible?
Creation and consciousness are the obvious two, as Paul pointed out in Romans 1.
Then you can look at the last couple of chapters of Job, as he is questioned by God.
Without telling the unbeliever where they are from, let them try to answer them.
But these are not completely apart. After consideration, let's do Romans 1 using secular terms.

Creation
Science exists because of the immateriable.
The universe follows a uniform, and measurable order. Mankind did not create the order. But we did/do observe it, and created the mathematics to measure, or define, it. We created numbers as the language of mathematics. One plus one cause two.

The universe also has physical laws. Again immaterial, but present. We did not cause the phenomenon of motion, gravity, etc.: But we can observe them, and difine them. We develop formulas, the language of physics, to explain them. Two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom cause a water molecule.

Laws are not random. There is even a law for chaos.
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
by Edward Lorenz

From whom, or where, did these laws originate? They, the immaterial phenomena, are not man-made, just observable and definable.

Science is then, at its core, an admission that the immaterial exists.

Creation, then, in scientific terms, is observable. Definitions - theories, as to how the universe began, may vary. But the observable fact is that it did begin.

Nothing then something.

Consciousness
There is, within mankind, from ancient civilizations, to present day, a collective need to worship something. It is observable and definable. The immaterable (need to worship), needed by the material (humanity). It is cultural, and at the same time, expands culture. Aborigines, Native Americans, the Incas, all cultures appart from, and unaware of each other, shared/share this common need.

Some worship material things like money, objects, themselves, and/or others. Some worship immaterial things like lust, fame or power.
Atheists worship an empty immaterial. Agnostics acknowledge the immaterial, but leave it undefined. They worship ignorance.
Still others worship the immaterial, maybe by different names - Wakan Tanka of the Sioux tribes for example, but some type of intelligence greater than themselves.
But collectively, the need of mankind to worship exists.

Why?
Where there is a need, there is a cause for that need.
From where, or whom, does this collective need to worship come from?

If something is observable, and definable, we can theorise a cause.

Could it be that the immaterial - greater intelligence - has left its mark on the material?
Is it not the responsibility of the material - humanity - to then try to observe, and define that greater intelligence?

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz
Great post Josef ! Nothing to add.
:nod
 
More often humans don't know what they are talking about. We often overestimated human capability.

Is it Biden or Trump won the majority vote?
Subconsciously we evaluate the situation by means of whether information are conveyed in a legitimate way. If it is conveyed legitimately, it stands as a candidate of truth. In the case of Biden vs. Trump, information on both sides are conveyed legitimately, both can stand as a candidate of truth. In this case, humans lack the ability to distinguish further but have to choose one out of the two even with the full awareness that one out of the two must be a lie.

History is a scarce recording of human deeds. We don't record humans on a 7/24 and for everyone basis. Under most circumstances pieces of information remain the sole testimony on a certain event. If you choose to reject history humans have no history. It is because history comes scarcely that it's not circular when using history to back up history. It's rather due to the fact that we lack capability to record ancient history that resources of ancient events come very limited.

The nature of history is that eyewitness account of testimonies are gathered by a historian and by his best judgment that the stories (history = his story) are credible and decided to record it down. Both these eyewitnesses and historians are long dead, while humans lack the ability to upkeep the information. That's actually why we don't have any manuscripts of the Bible which can be considered as original. On the other hand, secular authorities don't convey divine information. Bible remains mostly the sole source of God's information. I hinted here that for legitmate conveying an authority is required who is responsible for examining the credibility of the stories from the supposed eyewitnesses (i.e., the OT prophets) and recorded them down. We humans don't have a second account of history on Israel and on the deeds of God as witnessed by humans. We have only one account, which is the Holy Bible, for the recording of God's deeds as witnessed by humans (i.e., by God's chosen prophets). As a result, at the best of human capability all we can do is to choose to reference the Bible (or not) in terms of getting to the truth of God.

In terms of getting to the truth of Biden and Trump you can choose, that is legitimately, to believe what is said by CNN or Fox News as both of them presenting the 'facts' legitimately.

Legitimacy is tied to many factors or characteristics. Truth is always conveyed in a form a human testimony. An authority exists to examine the credibility of the testimonies then for a audient-facing mass media to convey it. Vote counting is done by the frontline vote counters, result is reckoned by a government authority then passed to CNN/Fox News (US facing mass media) to do the broadcasting. Similarly, testimones from the prophets are reckoned by God's chosen people Israel then passed to Judaism for God's truth to convey from generation to generation.
??
Are you saying the Jewish people have the truth?
(from your last sentence).
 
Back
Top