|| Self Attesting & Circular Reasoning || To say Scripture proves itself to be Gods words is to use a circular argument: we believe that Scripture is Gods Word because it claims to be that. And we believe its claims because Scripture is Gods Word [...] It should be admitted that this *is a circular argument, which is a logical fallacy. However, that does not make its use invalid, for all arguments for an authority [i.e. reason, empiricism] must ultimately appeal to that authority itself for proof: otherwise the authority in question would not be a real authority, rather the authority judging that authority would be. [See], this problem is not unique to the Christian arguing for the authority and inspiration of the Bible. Everyone, either implicitly or explicitly, uses circular argument when defending their ultimate authority for any belief. * My reason is my ultimate authority because it seems reasonable to me to make it so * Logical consistency is my ultimate authority because its simply logical * I know that there really is no ultimate authority because I dont know of any such authority It seems then, that legitimacy for *any belief ultimately comes round again to require its own self-attesting foundation. Maybe this is the inevitable nature of faith manifest in the gritty details of human thought and experience. It is impossible to avoid. The only sane way to think and live, is to understand that everyone, including myself, is logically incapable of holding a fully cogent argument for the authority of any agency, whether of the mind or otherwise. Then, with that understanding tempering our current beliefs, move forward with a tapestry of tested, well-reasoned ideas that lead to truly rational beliefs (i.e. what ideas make the most sense out of reality?).
Posted on: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 21:07:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015