Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Celsus · 05-07-2003, 10:39 AM

Hi Gemma,

Is this honestly your argument?

Quote:

Originally posted by Gemma Therese
Originally posted by Celsus
And we're supposed to accept what dead man once said, why? Arguments from authority are logical fallacies. Why don't you try putting forward a proper argument? Or at worst, you might attempt to establish why the authority you cite is to be trusted.

Arguments from authority are only fallacies when person A makes statement B about subject C, and is not an expert on subject C.

Thomas Aquinas was obviously an expert on theology.

Aquinas takes for granted the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. Let's start from step one: What is his theology based on? What assumptions does he make? What authorities does he rely on? You see, Aquinas relies on the argument from authority too--in this case, the Bible. So let's establish where the authority ends, before making more assertions as argument, ok? Why is the Bible, and the theology that follows, authoritative?

Joel

Tarnaak · 05-07-2003, 07:22 PM

I found this in answer to your question about the authority of the Bible.

http://www.forerunner.com/orthodoxy/...y_of_Scri.html

Starboy · 05-07-2003, 07:59 PM

Gemma, Aquinas was a fraud. I am the expert on unreality. For instance I know for a fact that it always rains in heaven on Tuesdays for fifteen minutes at noon sharp. I also know that god's favorite color is red. The bible and the rest of the saints and so forth, well they have done the best they can, but I've been to heaven and back so many times St. Peter knows me by name (they don't call me Starboy for nuthin). Anyway, if you don't believe me, kill yourself and ask him yourself.

Starboy

Philosoft · 05-07-2003, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarnaak
I found this in answer to your question about the authority of the Bible.

http://www.forerunner.com/orthodoxy/...y_of_Scri.html

Wow, that site really sucks. From the article:

Quote:

The Bible is unique in its survival. This does not prove that the Bible is true, but it does prove that it stands alone among books.

Translation: This entire article adds precisely nothing to the veracity of the Bible, but if I bury the disclaimer in the middle somewhere, maybe people won't notice it.

Celsus · 05-07-2003, 10:45 PM

Tarnaak,

Why don't you cite the best argument from that website and try to argue it as a defense of the authority of the Bible here?

Joel

Mageth · 05-08-2003, 10:35 AM

"Best" argument from the website? Are there any good arguments there?

From Tarnaak's website, what the authors seem to think is the "best" argument:

The Authority of the Word of God

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God ... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:1,14).

The name given to Jesus is the Word. The authority of the Word of God comes from the fact that it is the testimony Jesus Christ has given of himself: "If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true ... I am one who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me." (John 6:14,18).

The authority of the Word of God does not come from the study of the historical accuracy of the Bible; the study of archaeology to prove the validity of the Bible; nor the study of science to prove the account of creation. Instead we believe the authority of the Word because it was given by Jesus Christ. This is called "presuppositionalism."

Ah, yes, the bible has authority because the bible says it is authoritative! The bible's true because it says it's true! We know the bible was given to us by God because the bible says so!

:banghead:

lpetrich · 05-08-2003, 10:53 AM

A defense of the Bible's veraity:

The Bible is unique in its survival. This does not prove that the Bible is true, but it does prove that it stands alone among books.

Except that the Bible is far from unique in being a long-time survivor. Muslims tell us that the Koran has been perfectly preserved from when it was revealed to Mohammed; does that make it the Word of Allah?

Tarnaak · 05-08-2003, 01:00 PM

wow, tough crowd, hehe

how about this then:

http://www.alluremedia.net/siegel/sk...hisrefjes.html

Mageth · 05-08-2003, 01:16 PM

What is this, the "argument by link"?

Tarnaak, you'd be better served by stating your arguments yourself rather than by merely posting links, or at least summarizing the main arguments on the pages you link to.

Further, the last link you posted is really a topic for the Biblical Criticism and Archaeology forum, in which the very documents, and the problems therewith, listed on that page have been thoroughly and often discussed.

I will note from that page:

All this is historical evidence, good evidence, but evidence alone. It can be doubted but no more than anything else in history that we have a tendency to accept. It passes any objective historian�s test in terms of the many and varied sources and eyewitness accounts.

My comment: hah. That's funny.

mike_decock · 05-08-2003, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarnaak
wow, tough crowd, hehe

how about this then:

http://www.alluremedia.net/siegel/sk...hisrefjes.html

*Yawn*

As Mageth stated, presenting your own arguments and discussing them is going to serve you much better than preaching and linking.

Why don't you read some of the critiques of those References before continue. Here's a good start:

Josh McDowell's "Evidence" For Jesus.

-Mike...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-07-2003, 07:22 PM	#2
Tarnaak Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: USA Posts: 106	I found this in answer to your question about the authority of the Bible. http://www.forerunner.com/orthodoxy/...y_of_Scri.html

05-07-2003, 07:59 PM	#3
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Gemma, Aquinas was a fraud. I am the expert on unreality. For instance I know for a fact that it always rains in heaven on Tuesdays for fifteen minutes at noon sharp. I also know that god's favorite color is red. The bible and the rest of the saints and so forth, well they have done the best they can, but I've been to heaven and back so many times St. Peter knows me by name (they don't call me Starboy for nuthin). Anyway, if you don't believe me, kill yourself and ask him yourself. Starboy

05-07-2003, 10:45 PM	#5
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	Tarnaak, Why don't you cite the best argument from that website and try to argue it as a defense of the authority of the Bible here? Joel

05-08-2003, 10:35 AM	#6
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	"Best" argument from the website? Are there any good arguments there? From Tarnaak's website, what the authors seem to think is the "best" argument: The Authority of the Word of God "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God ... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:1,14). The name given to Jesus is the Word. The authority of the Word of God comes from the fact that it is the testimony Jesus Christ has given of himself: "If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true ... I am one who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me." (John 6:14,18). The authority of the Word of God does not come from the study of the historical accuracy of the Bible; the study of archaeology to prove the validity of the Bible; nor the study of science to prove the account of creation. Instead we believe the authority of the Word because it was given by Jesus Christ. This is called "presuppositionalism." Ah, yes, the bible has authority because the bible says it is authoritative! The bible's true because it says it's true! We know the bible was given to us by God because the bible says so! :banghead:

05-08-2003, 10:53 AM	#7
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	A defense of the Bible's veraity: The Bible is unique in its survival. This does not prove that the Bible is true, but it does prove that it stands alone among books. Except that the Bible is far from unique in being a long-time survivor. Muslims tell us that the Koran has been perfectly preserved from when it was revealed to Mohammed; does that make it the Word of Allah?

05-08-2003, 01:00 PM	#8
Tarnaak Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: USA Posts: 106	wow, tough crowd, hehe how about this then: http://www.alluremedia.net/siegel/sk...hisrefjes.html

05-08-2003, 01:16 PM	#9
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	What is this, the "argument by link"? Tarnaak, you'd be better served by stating your arguments yourself rather than by merely posting links, or at least summarizing the main arguments on the pages you link to. Further, the last link you posted is really a topic for the Biblical Criticism and Archaeology forum, in which the very documents, and the problems therewith, listed on that page have been thoroughly and often discussed. I will note from that page: All this is historical evidence, good evidence, but evidence alone. It can be doubted but no more than anything else in history that we have a tendency to accept. It passes any objective historian�s test in terms of the many and varied sources and eyewitness accounts. My comment: hah. That's funny.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.