So we agree that circular reasoning, be it with the bible or logic, is illogical. You can't use that which you are trying to prove as part of the proof. Good.

Thus now that we agree that we cannot use the bible to prove the validity of the bible, we are left with this way of dealing with the bible...



... which is subjective and reafirms my point that it is your worldview that KJV is divinly inspired, not fact and not a global truth.


And this is why using the bible fails as a global worldview: it is strictly within your personal worldview and thus cannot be used to "lift" itself upto a global worldview in the same manner that you cannot "lift" yourself up by grabbing your feet with both hands and pulling up. This is why I say that you cannot use scriptures to prove the validity of the scriptures; that would be trying to lift yourself up with your own two hands or more accuratey using the bible to prove the validity of the bible.

Since we can't use logic according to you and we can't use personal worldviews according to me, may I suggest The Scientific Method as an impartial, non-circular way to compromise and address these issues?

ArtimusBena,
Forgive me but I do not see how this is connected to my last post. Could you respond to this:
"Let me ask you briefly why it is that people get math problems wrong, disagree on scientific laws, kill each other in war, lie etc.? Or consider this, logic is something that everyone must presuppose in order to think. Why is it that logicians and philosophers disagree on what logic is, and which are laws of logic?"
Do you understand what I am asking?

fastlane69,
We agree logic cannot justify itself, but worldview evaluation is not therefore subjective. Your remark "By your statement, logic cannot be used when dealing with the bible since it cannot be proven. Hence we agree that circular reasoning, be it with the bible or logic, is illogical. Good." completely misses my point. I think logic must be used to understand the bible as it is written logically by God whose nature is completely logical. My point was simply that you want to reject the bible which you claim is circular and not hold your own view to the same standard. You also fail to appreciate the difference between logic within a worldview and logic AS a worldview. Worldviews (all of them) are circular by necessity. This is different than the simple logical fallacy of begging the question. Logic is to be understood within a worldview. For me it is the bible, for you it is not expressed. Perhaps you have not thought about it, so this would be a good time to briefly clarify how logic makes sense (does not defy itself) within your worldview. And also justify how logic can be universal and invarient within your worldview. If logic is not accounted for cogently within your worldview you must relenquish using logic or use the Christian worldview.

You state "your worldview that KJV is divinly inspired, not fact and not a global truth."
You are confusing me with Schultz- I haven't introduced this proposition.

""Let me ask you briefly why it is that people get math problems wrong, disagree on scientific laws, kill each other in war, lie etc.? Or consider this, logic is something that everyone must presuppose in order to think. Why is it that logicians and philosophers disagree on what logic is, and which are laws of logic?" ""

Because we are subjective beings, and our respective, as well as collective, understanding is varied, and therefore not universal. And neither is the bible; whether or not it in itself is perfect and without flaw, our varied perspectives affect our perception of those words.

We get math problems wrong because our minds are different; some people are better suited for mathematical thinking. We disagree on scientific laws because we all have different perspectives on the causes of things. We kill each other in war because some of us want more than what we were given. We lie because it allows us to do what we want without the consequences.

Without god or anything that goes with that belief, it is possible that we would be the exact same way that we are now. Who's to know for certain? You can't just memorize a book and claim to have a better understanding of the whys and hows.

ArtimusBena,
To say that we are wrong because we are subjective beings destroys why we can ever be right, because we are still subjective beings. So this does not explain anything, nor justify any knowledge. In other words if we are subjective beings and this makes us wrong then what makes us right?
'We get math problems wrong because our minds are different' also has the same dilemma; how do we then get math problems right? Our minds are still different. How do people better suited get math problems wrong then? Because they are subjective beings? Try again.
You state:
"Without god or anything that goes with that belief, it is possible that we would be the exact same way that we are now. Who's to know for certain?"
The way define possiblity is based upon your religion/philosophy. This may be a good time for you to clarify what that is.
Plus in response to "who's to know for certain?"; well we are subjective beings with different minds you state. I guess we can conclude that no one can therefore know anything for certain in your worldview. This is a good example of where your worldview exhibits incoherence, for you would 'know' for certain that you couldn't conclude anything for certain. As you can see your worldview destroys itself.

Then unlike Schultz, you do not hold the KJV to be divinly inspired or it is not your bible of choice?

"I guess we can conclude that no one can therefore know anything for certain in your worldview"


Precisely my point. There is no such thing as knowledge, not even the knowledge that there is no such thing. We cannot trust our own minds.

Therefore, we have bigger questions than 'is there a god'. Like, is there ... anything. The difference between myself and a 'believer' is, whatever I'm saying, I'm saying it with the perspective that everything I say can never be truly correct. When you say something, you say it with certainty, and that I envy, but I will never be able to assume that the answers given to me by other, equally flawed human beings, are the right ones, considering that not even I have any real idea of the truth. Being human though, I cannot help but reject the idea of a god. At least, the god that human beings have fallibly described to me through text and word of mouth. I must see it through the eyes of reason to understand it for myself to put the words into any perspective. That, again, is why I am myself far from perfect.

In the end, pretty much all of us seem to NEED certainties, but where we differ is this: you search for black and white, I search for contradictions to both. It's neither bad or good, it simply is, but any belief not tested to the full extent with the willingness to be wrong, is not a belief, but an assumption, based on dust and fancy.

ChrisTodd, define your logic please. I fear that the definition I use and your logic are not the same as the application of my logic is independent of my religious beliefs and personal opinions, ie my worldview.



How does the bible define your logic? In my case, it is clearly expressed in the form of math and/or symbolism.

ArtimusBena,
I'm not sure if I should be taking you seriously at this point. You state "Precisely my point. There is no such thing as knowledge, not even the knowledge that there is no such thing. We cannot trust our own minds."
Firstly- If there is no knowledge you should not know this. You do know this therefore your philosophy is wrong.
Secondly- If you cannot trust your mind then you should not know that you cannot trust your mind. You do know this therfore your philosophy is wrong.
You proceed to explain:
"I must see it through the eyes of reason to understand it for myself to put the words into any perspective."
You contradict your previous statements. Don't you see, you do know things and you will be accountable to God. You know things because he controls the universe and made you in his image. Your mind reflects his mind. This makes it possible for you to know things. You must use reason to think, you cannot do otherwise. This is only possible because of the purpose of the God of the bible.

I certainly do not speak for ChrisTodd, but it is my belief that only the original text of the sciptures is divinely inspired. The translations are best called educational interpretations. For the divine Word you must revert to the original texts.

Having said that I have not found many places in the Bible that differ from one version to another. The real trick is in studying the text systematically and not drawing out whole philosophical tirads based on a verse or two.

Proper studying requires learning the customs of the times in which a particular book was written, the type of book, poetic versus historical for example, and how similar themes are presented through out the Bible.

While I believe the Bible to be the word of God, ie divinely inspired, I do have many questions involving contradictory parts of the Bible. I have many problems with these passages being explained away with simple phrases like who can understand God or yes both statements that seem contradictory can be true, we just don't understand how. These statements undermine Christian believability.

I have no problem with saying I do not know what that means and can't explain it. After all that pretty much says the same thing mentioned above but is much more straight forward.

Sorry for jumping in, but KJV, NASB, NIV, ESV or whatever is not divinely inspired. The Hebrew texts of the Old Testament and the Greek text of the New Testament were divinely inspired in my belief. I also have questions that some of the texts included in the New Testament should even be considered scriptures. But I stand alone on that leg with in the Christian community as far as I know and I am not any knid of authority on this subject.

Nice conversation.