Is this a blatant example of circular logic?

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 17 by Justin108]

Truth doesn't contradict truth; scientific truth is simply the correct understanding of the physical world. The bible is a book of truth and so by definition it won't contradict what is true. If therefore the bible touches on science (which it does rarely, but it does on occassion) but one interpretation contradicts what we know to be true about the physical world and the other doesn't, its not rocket science to know which interpretation is correct.

Logic,

JW

- Everything in the Bible is true
- If you find something in the Bible that is not true, it must mean that you interpreted it wrong
- How do we know you interpreted it wrong and that the Bible is not simply mistaken? Because everything in the Bible is true

[Justin108]

- Everything in the Bible is true
- If you find something in the Bible that is not true, it must mean that you interpreted it wrong
- How do we know you interpreted it wrong and that the Bible is not simply mistaken? Because everything in the Bible is true

Of course this is circular thinking and that is why thinking Christians no not use it as a prop to their faith.

IF I accept everything in the Bible is true FROM GOD"S POV, and come across something in the Bible that SEEMS TO BE but is not proven to be untrue then I wait for the problem to be reconciled to the truth as I know it from GOD's Holy Spirit who teaches us all truth even what the Bible means to HIM, John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth.

So your solution to this circular logic is "the Holy Spirit will tell me"? Can you prove the Holy Spirit exists? You will have to if you intend to appeal to it as a solution to a problem in logic. Pro tip: Don't start your proof with "because the Bible says so". That won't work. Neither will "I can feel it, you guys!". That fails too.

Claiming the Holy Spirit will lead you to truth is about as useful as me claiming my magical rock of knowledge will lead me to truth. My magical rock of knowledge says God is actually a giant intergalactic rooster. You cannot argue with me because I have the magical rock of truth.

[Justin108]

All truth HAS to include scientific evidence...

Ummm, evidence is not proof ... and understanding truth depends upon proof, not evidence, Rom 1:20, a proof clearly seen that destroys all our excuses....

Five million years ago, we all witnessed the Evil Overlord Xzaluth destroy our planet of Uhm. He then wiped our memories and sent our souls to inhabit the bodies of apes who then evolved into humans. So sayith the Great Book of Uhm. So you have no excuse not to believe in Xzaluth because you saw him destroy Uhm but just... kind of forgot about it. A proof clearly seen that destroys all our excuses.

[William]

Ummm, evidence is not proof ... and understanding truth depends upon proof, not evidence, Rom 1:20, a proof clearly seen that destroys all our excuses....

Something proven truthful found among other things yet to be proven truthful, doth not make those things yet to be proven truthful, truthful in the interim.

Romans 1:20 New International Version (NIV)

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

You believe that this is proven truth?

This clearly claims that to see the invisible GOD, all one has to do is understand the nature of creation. Science is the tool for that job.

The more science unveils the mysteries of the universe, and in doing so proves that once held beliefs which were claimed to be truth in the past. are proven to be untrue. the closer we come to understanding (seeing the true nature) of the *invisible creator.

In relation to the verse, it is obvious that people have not clearly understood the universe as it really is, they did not for example, have the ability to see all the galaxies, or understand that the sun was so much further away from the earth than the moon, or that the earth orbited the sun, or what the moon was made up of, and indeed, we do not even now know all there is to know about 'what has been made'.

Thus, the verse is not truthful in how it says what it is saying. It is saying that humans have always known everything there is to know about 'what has being made' (which is clearly not the case, even today) and thus we have no excuse for not knowing, the true nature of the invisible GOD.

The truth is, in relation to understanding the invisible GOD, this has to correspond with what we know about the visible universe, and in that the understanding is perpetually changing, becuase our understanding is perpetually changing.

This explains why the ideas people once held about GOD can be seen to be ignorant and naive etc - they observed the goings on of nature in their locality and transferred that onto their idea of GOD...trouble is, they did not always change their ideas of GOD as new information came to light.

That is, perhaps, wherein their is 'no excuse'.

In relation to the bible, (or anything else along these lines) one cannot claim the book is completely truthful just because it might contain some proven truth.

That is, incidentally, WHY science deals with evidence - the evidence existing is truth, but the truth about the evidence is largely left open-ended because the nature of the universe dictates that this is the best course of action = the best position to hold. Scientists are well aware that new evidence comes along which cause the theories around the evidence to CHANGE.

This is something old time religion isn't so willing to do. CHANGE.

GOD may well be 'the same yesterday, today and forever', but our understanding of GOD cannot be the same and must change as the universe becomes more and more understood through the device of science.

Otherwise our understanding of GOD will remain by and large, one of gross negligent ignorance, for which there is really 'no excuse'.



It's not rocket science, but it has to involve science.

(The above views are processed through the lens of *Panpsychism)

♦ Evidence of Design

[marco]

Everything true is provably true. Therefore if everything in the bible is true, it will have been proven to be true.
If this is not the case, then the statement 'Everything in the bible is true' remains a false statement.

It would be lovely, in mathematics, if we were able to prove all our apparently true conjectures.

Your second statement is false. Something may be "provable" but the proof has not yet been found. In any case, the statement that everything in the Bible is true does not submit itself to human proof since it is accepted as axiomatic that God inspires truth. Axioms require no proof.

Because we cannot prove something is true it is certainly not the case we can then deduce it is false.

[ttruscott]

Ummm, evidence is not proof ... and understanding truth depends upon proof, not evidence, Rom 1:20, a proof clearly seen that destroys all our excuses....

Something proven truthful found among other things yet to be proven truthful, doth not make those things yet to be proven truthful, truthful in the interim.

Romans 1:20 New International Version (NIV)

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

You believe that this is proven truth?

Yes, I do.

This clearly claims that to see the invisible GOD, all one has to do is understand the nature of creation. Science is the tool for that job.

ImCo, "To see" as to" visually confirm" is not within the scope of the verse since what is clearly "seen" is HIS invisible qualities of Divinity and power.

Thus, the verse is not truthful in how it says what it is saying. It is saying that humans have always known everything there is to know about 'what has being made' (which is clearly not the case, even today) and thus we have no excuse for not knowing, the true nature of the invisible GOD.

While what we know is indeed presented as "always been known by humans", it refers to HIS divinity and power, two aspects of HIS true nature.

From my pov this refers to our witnessing the creation of the physical universe which proved by being made HIS Deity which we had accepted or rejected by faith (an unproven hope) before this proof. Thus we have no excuse for ignoring HIS deity.

But the rest of Rom 1 explains further that we do not remember any such experience of the proven truth because we push it from our minds, we repress it, because we love sinfulness more, the great addictive quality of sin.

Thus, ImCo, no scientific study of the physical way things are can bring us to GOD as sin clouds all our understanding and determination of reality.

[William]

Everything true is provably true. Therefore if everything in the bible is true, it will have been proven to be true.
If this is not the case, then the statement 'Everything in the bible is true' remains a false statement.

Your second statement is false. Something may be "provable" but the proof has not yet been found. In any case, the statement that everything in the Bible is true does not submit itself to human proof since it is accepted as axiomatic that God inspires truth. Axioms require no proof.

Because we cannot prove something is true it is certainly not the case we can then deduce it is false.

You bring up and interesting set of points. I will go through them one at a time:

It would be lovely, in mathematics, if we were able to prove all our apparently true conjectures.

1: Conjectures cannot be proven and still remain conjecture. Mathematics tend to show proof. 1 and 1 added together become 2.
There are situations where one thing put together with another thing do not equal two things. They now are one thing, which is different from the two things they once were.

Your second statement is false. Something may be "provable" but the proof has not yet been found.

Everything is provable in that case. A pink unicorn may be 'provable' but has not yet been found, because they exist on another planet, far, far away.
One can believe that a pink unicorn exists without proof and from the belief, one can claim the pink unicorn exists, but belief based claims cannot be regarded as proof.
"Everything is provable" does not equal "Everything in the Bible is true"

In any case, the statement that everything in the Bible is true does not submit itself to human proof since it is accepted as axiomatic that God inspires truth. Axioms require no proof.

Axioms are statements/propositions which are regarded as established, accepted OR self evidently true.

In the case of the statement/proposition that "Everything in the Bible is true" on the grounds that it is an established proposition believed by hundreds of millions of Christians, that on its own falls under the fallacy of:
Argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") which is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

A statement or proposition which has been established and accepted, is not something which can truly said to be the case in relation to the bible as a book "The Bible is the word of GOD" and certainly the statement "Everything in the Bible is true" cannot be regarded as an axiom. Not everyone accepts the establishment of those claims as being truthful.

Certainly the statements "The bible is the word of GOD" and "Everything in the Bible is true" are not self evident. They are rather, expressions of belief, and expressions of belief are not to be conflated with evidence of truth.

There may be things within the bible that are self evidently true, but there definitely are things within the bible which are not. So again, no justification to claim Axiom.

I have shown here that your reasoning in doing so, is faulty.

One last note. In relation to your comment "it is accepted as axiomatic that God inspires truth. Axioms require no proof."

If GOD does indeed inspire truth and we accept that axiom as part of the overall description of 'what makes GOD, a GOD' , GOD has the ability to inspire truth in other self aware individuate consciousnesses, so what that can show us in relation to the behavior of human beings is that those who are inspired to be truthful about some things are being inspired by GOD. The other things they are NOT inspired to being truthful about, thus says they are NOT being inspired by GOD in relation to those other things...so they are only sometimes inspired by GOD, as they choose.

It also implies that while GOD has the ability, GOD does not have the means to MAKE anyone connect with GOD in order to be inspired by truth. Thus GOD does not have the ability to MAKE anyone DO anything. Inspiration in the only method by which GOD can work with individuals in relation to truth, and even then, the process is typically long and drawn out because the individual has to want to be inspired and because the individual has been taught and thus assumes without question certain things which are called truth but are not truth, as being true anyway, the process effectively ceases. Being inspired by truth has to be a consistent and ongoing process because what the truth is doing is dismantling the lies, and if a person believes something to be truth because they have been told it is the truth and chooses not to test it and sort the wheat from the chaff, then the person is clearly NOT inspired in the area - the person has lost the inspiration to continue unveiling the truth, which amounts to the person effective choosing to disconnect from GOD.


Also, there are those who are inspired by truth who are not theists and do not believe in any GOD, yet the axiom remains and thus GOD does not have the ability to MAKE anyone see that they inspired by truth because of GOD. They are still inspired by truth, but lack the understanding or belief that GOD is behind that impulse.
This should not matter to GOD because the individual is at least having that connect on a subconscious level, as long as they are continually being inspired to seek truth in any and all situations.

We can also examine theists and their organised religions to see if they are being inspired by truth and thus by GOD, and if they are not, then we can ascertain by that, that they are disconnected from GOD because of whatever it is that prevents them from being inspired by GOD in relation to the truth.

Thus 'what is the truth' has to be answered in relation to that. and we cannot be expected to believe what THEY claim to be the truth, simply because they claim it to be the truth.
Otherwise we will fail to find out for ourselves what is the truth by effectively allowing them to be the medium in relation to the individual and the truth.

Thus, in relation to Christendom and Christians who claim that the bible is the word of GOD and therefore everything in the bible is true actually replaces GOD inspired truth seeking because the bible has become the medium rather than GOD.
In relation to the likelihood that the TRUTH is that the bible and Christianity were the creation of Roman elitists, Christians serve the elitists even while believing they serve GOD.

The elitists agenda thus becomes the 'truth' which inspires Christendom effectively replacing GOD as the one who inspires truth by replacing GOD with the bible.

This is a tried and true method of control and manipulation by the elitists of every culture past and present and every major organised religion has fallen prey to it.

That, I am inspired to understand by GOD, is the TRUTH. Furthermore, history also provides the evidence as do present times which can be observed as evidence and truthfully only able to be interpreted one way.

All theists involved with organised religions have been and still are, deceived and GOD has been replaced by mediums such as the bible, and other holy writ and the truth has been replaced by deception and theists are supporting deception believing it to be truth.


In the end, the axiom "GOD inspires truth" is no justification for the claim that "The bible is the word of GOD and therefore everything in the Bible is true."

[Justin108]

Ummm, evidence is not proof ... and understanding truth depends upon proof, not evidence, Rom 1:20, a proof clearly seen that destroys all our excuses....

Something proven truthful found among other things yet to be proven truthful, doth not make those things yet to be proven truthful, truthful in the interim.

Romans 1:20 New International Version (NIV)

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

You believe that this is proven truth?

Yes, I do.

So claiming something was proven means it was proven? Romans 1:20 claims that we all saw proof of God and because Romans 1:20 claims this, you believe that we have proof of God. Ted, that's not how proof works. If it did, my scenario in post 21 would be true.

[marco]

You bring up and interesting set of points. I will go through them one at a time:

That would have been interesting but instead you go through points I didn't make and comment on these.

" Conjectures cannot be proven and still remain conjecture."

Very true. Who is disputing this?

" Mathematics tend to show proof. 1 and 1 added together become 2. "

The statement is taken as axiomatic. Mathematics does not "show it" or even "tend to show it."


"There are situations where one thing put together with another thing do not equal two things. "


One thing and one thing gives two things. We may call the union something else; it does not disprove anything. In fact we can challenge arithmetic by examining what happens close to the speed of light, but that's another question.


"Everything is provable in that case. "


You are burying yourself in semantics and straying from the argument.


"In the case of the statement/proposition that "Everything in the Bible is true" on the grounds that it is an established proposition believed by hundreds of millions of Christians, that on its own falls under the fallacy of: Argumentum ad populum. (Latin) "

Does it now? I don't believe everything in the Bible is true and I would certainly not claim this to be the case because of the weight of popular opinion. That was never my argumentum.

" So again, no justification to claim Axiom. "

For those who believe in God's celestial guidance it is an axiomatic consequence that his handbook is truth. I don't believe this but that is the situation you are arguing against, and so your "prove it" suggestions do not apply.


"I have shown here that your reasoning in doing so, is faulty."

You have shown somebody's reasoning is faulty. By imputing propositions to me that I don't for a moment uphold, you have found errors.



" Inspiration in the only method by which GOD can work with individuals in relation to truth "

I could do a reductio ad absurdum (Latin) on this statement of yours, taken out of context.

Originally you said:

"Everything true is provably true. Therefore if everything in the bible is true, it will have been proven to be true."


These statements remain wrong. Conjectures can be seen to be true but the proof is missing. Axioms are true but we don't prove them. Euclid built his geometry on this.
The 'therefore' statement is just wrong.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Justin108]

Eh… sort of, but not really.

JW seems to be suggesting that when there are two possible interpretations of a passage, then we should assume that the one which matches our existing understanding of reality is the correct one.

To take an extreme example, if we read the statement, “She is as slow as a turtle,� then we could understand that a few different ways. Perhaps she runs at speeds around 0.05 miles per hours. Or perhaps the writer feels that she could and should be moving at a faster speed, even though she is actually moving faster than a turtle.

Obviously the latter is more likely the case and we would assume that to be true without giving it a second thought.

This is how we read virtually everything that we come across. To fail to read the Bible in the manner, or to say that it is circular reasoning, seems disingenuous.

Got it.
So we should read the Bible like we do any other book, even children's books.

I cannot say that I disagree with you.

[William]

[Replying to post 27 by marco]

You have shown somebody's reasoning is faulty. By imputing propositions to me that I don't for a moment uphold, you have found errors.

Since it is acceptable practice in debate to take a position one does not personally uphold, an argue for that position, it is not about what the debater personally believes which is under debate, but the reasoning of that position being upheld.

I show fault in your reasoning, and it does not matter that you personally uphold it or not.