All "Divine Inspiration" Arguments are fallacious

[Rational Agnostic]

Many Christians and Jews insist that the Bible is the "word of a god" as do Muslims about the Koran, Mormons about the Book of Mormon, Hindus about the Bhagavad Gita etc. When pressed by skeptics as to why one should believe their alleged holy books are divinely inspired, they argue that the texts themselves state that they are written by a god, therefore a god must have written them.

Of course, this is an obvious circular argument, and it is the *only* argument that all of these holy book adherents have to offer. Of course, when one points this out to them, they are often angered, insisting that their imaginary father will exact retribution upon them for discovering a basic logical fallacy employed by the ancient con artists who wrote their texts. In any case, this does not change the fact that the argument is still circular in nature. The only way to argue that religious texts are divinely inspired is to appeal to the texts themselves which state divine inspiration.

In other words, all arguments for the divine inspiration of so-called "sacred texts" are as valid as me arguing that what I write on a scrap of toilet paper is the word of god, simply because somewhere on the scrap of toilet paper, I wrote that "Everything written on this scrap of toilet paper is the word of god." Of course, my "toilet paper sacred text" would be dismissed immediately, even by those inclined to belief in divine inspiration of sacred texts. So, if it is so easy to dismiss it in that case, why is it difficult in the case of your favorite religious book, since there is absolutely no difference in the line of reasoning used to arrive at the conclusion that the writing was written by a god?

 

[Grandliseur]

The only way to argue that religious texts are divinely inspired is to appeal to the texts themselves which state divine inspiration.

To believers, the claim of being Inspired by God is backed up by evidence we accept but the unbelievers naturally reject. There is no reason for anger. There is reason to remain in your faith - if that is so desired. You have the right to your unbelief, but that is also the right to God's wrath should he exist, as you most likely do claim he doesn't. Your choice, your gamble.

The problem is - that if the God of this universe should want any of us microbes to do anything at all -- his dealings will be as with microbes, in a sense, and his actions will be worse than those of a super-volcano in full fledged outbreak mode. The demands then of atheists for evidence of his existence is as funny as their rejection of his extremely impossible miracles that they outright reject.

I don't think anyone, believer or atheists, can comprehend God and his actions. Still, it is a do or die thing. Though hell fire is not one of the choices, it doesn't exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To believers, the claim of being Inspired by God is backed up by evidence we accept but the unbelievers naturally reject. There is no reason for anger. There is reason to remain in your faith - if that is so desired. You have the right to your unbelief, but that is also the right to God's wrath should he exist, as you most likely do claim he doesn't. Your choice, your gamble.

The problem is - that if the God of this universe should want any of us microbes to do anything at all -- his dealings will be as with microbes, in a sense, and his actions will be worse than those of a super-volcano in full fledged outbreak mode. The demands then of atheists for evidence of his existence is as funny as their rejection of his extremely impossible miracles that they outright reject.

I don't think anyone, believer or atheists, can comprehend God and his actions. Still, it is a do or die thing. Though hell fire is not one of the choices, it doesn't exist.

And yet when pressed believers cannot present any evidence. What is this so called "evidence"? The failed prophecies of the Bible can't be claimed to be "evidence". So what do you have? All I have ever seen is confirmation bias at best. Perhaps you can amaze a few people here.

 

[Grandliseur]

And yet when pressed believers cannot present any evidence. What is this so called "evidence"? The failed prophecies of the Bible can't be claimed to be "evidence". So what do you have? All I have ever seen is confirmation bias at best. Perhaps you can amaze a few people here.

Nothing doing.

The point is really, that when I point atheists in the direction of professionals who in my opinion present such evidence, atheists reject it out of hand. I think the video on the Exodus was excellent and presented nice evidence for this, as I also thought the video about the flood from Prof. Walter did. But, that is only my opinion. You have to make up your own opinions, and that is your right and privilege.

What remains is then for each to stand on their own two feet. While it may be my responsibility to teach people the gospel of Christ, and in this I am indeed qualified to teach what the Bible says and doesn't say, it is not my responsibility to handle anything beyond that. That responsibility remains on each person's own shoulders.

 

[sayak83]

Many Christians and Jews insist that the Bible is the "word of a god" as do Muslims about the Koran, Mormons about the Book of Mormon, Hindus about the Bhagavad Gita etc. When pressed by skeptics as to why one should believe their alleged holy books are divinely inspired, they argue that the texts themselves state that they are written by a god, therefore a god must have written them.

Of course, this is an obvious circular argument, and it is the *only* argument that all of these holy book adherents have to offer. Of course, when one points this out to them, they are often angered, insisting that their imaginary father will exact retribution upon them for discovering a basic logical fallacy employed by the ancient con artists who wrote their texts. In any case, this does not change the fact that the argument is still circular in nature. The only way to argue that religious texts are divinely inspired is to appeal to the texts themselves which state divine inspiration.

In other words, all arguments for the divine inspiration of so-called "sacred texts" are as valid as me arguing that what I write on a scrap of toilet paper is the word of god, simply because somewhere on the scrap of toilet paper, I wrote that "Everything written on this scrap of toilet paper is the word of god." Of course, my "toilet paper sacred text" would be dismissed immediately, even by those inclined to belief in divine inspiration of sacred texts. So, if it is so easy to dismiss it in that case, why is it difficult in the case of your favorite religious book, since there is absolutely no difference in the line of reasoning used to arrive at the conclusion that the writing was written by a god?

Regarding Gita, I don't care if you find it divinely inspired or not. If you find it useful in your own life and practice, follow it, otherwise throw it away. Divine inspiration exists in anything that helps you breach your parochial limits of location, history and conditionality and makes you connect with the wider universe and beyond. The paintings of Michaelangelo, the poems of Wordsworth, the music of Mozart, the reflections of Socrates and the physics of Principia can also serve as your divine inspiration depending on the texture of your character and what resonates with your inner self. Find the beauty that exists and feel the love for that beauty and the desire to express it in your thoughts and deeds. What else is there to say?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing doing.

The point is really, that when I point atheists in the direction of professionals who in my opinion present such evidence, atheists reject it out of hand. I think the video on the Exodus was excellent and presented nice evidence for this, as I also thought the video about the flood from Prof. Walter did. But, that is only my opinion. You have to make up your own opinions, and that is your right and privilege.

What remains is then for each to stand on their own two feet. While it may be my responsibility to teach people the gospel of Christ, and in this I am indeed qualified to teach what the Bible says and doesn't say, it is not my responsibility to handle anything beyond that. That responsibility remains on each person's own shoulders.

Perhaps that is because your "professionals" are merely apologists, also known as "liars for Jesus". And you have demonstrated a complete lack of judgment when it comes to the sciences. I am willing to discuss the evidence that tells us your beliefs about Genesis are false. Why are you afraid to support your claims? It appears that you have no evidence.

I can explain to you how we know that there was no flood. I doubt if you can substantiate your claim about evidence for your beliefs.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I think a lot of theists misuse and misunderstand "divine inspiration." It means nothing, really. If I draw a picture of Thor, hey-presto guess what? That picture is divinely inspired. Doesn't make it holy or sacred.

 

[idav]

I think people can be divinely inspired is ok and everything but with too much excess can become hubris. What I mean is these people who are writing these sacred texts make some serious claims if they say they have a direct connect to god. At some point I'm wondering why I'm not reading the cure for cancer or something. Anything "divinely inspired" should at the very least be more than we can personally come up without reading a book about it first.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... Of course, my "toilet paper sacred text" would be dismissed immediately, even by those inclined to belief in divine inspiration of sacred texts. So, if it is so easy to dismiss it in that case, why is it difficult in the case of your favorite religious book, since there is absolutely no difference in the line of reasoning used to arrive at the conclusion that the writing was written by a god?

^ speaking of 'toilet paper ... text', the above demonstrates a lovely balance of snotty arrogance and sloppy straw man construction. So, for example, one can believe that religious texts are inspired by, or the word of, god without deeming them to be either infallible or literally true. Furthermore, one can hold such a belief while fully acknowledging it to be a matter of faith rather than demonstrable fact.

One suspects that the OP's intent is to discredit theism by pummeling circular argumentation. If true, its author is simply employing one fallacy (argumentum ad logicam) while railing against another (circulus in demonstrado).

 

[Kapalika]

Many Christians and Jews insist that the Bible is the "word of a god" as do Muslims about the Koran, Mormons about the Book of Mormon, Hindus about the Bhagavad Gita etc. When pressed by skeptics as to why one should believe their alleged holy books are divinely inspired, they argue that the texts themselves state that they are written by a god, therefore a god must have written them.

I stopped reading here because you obviously don't know what the hell you are talking about.

First of all, no Hindu will ever claim that "a god" wrote the Gita, it was Vyasa and it isn't stated in the Gita how it was written (actually, it's stated in part of the Mahabharat that Genesh dictated it to him but that's beside my nitpick).

More importantly the primary texts of most of Hinduism, The Vedas, are traditionally believed to be authorless and predates all gods. And the later Upanishads had very human authors, and aren't on the level of something like the Vedas.

And no Hindu as far as I know should ever claim that anyone should "believe" anything. Hindus are not in the practice of trying to convince others and in general will to varying degrees recognize the fact that other religions or lack there of can have validity.

Also, a Hindu would say that the scriptures are NOT believed on by faith or at least not faith alone. Truth of the scriptures comes from two main sources which is either practices such as meditation and looking inwards or by intense study (jnana, which is the hardest way it's said).

The looking inwards, I know you are already skeptical. However since the claims of the scriptures relate directly towards the nature of the self and of the self's relation to the Cosmos, it's said that since lots of meditation explores the self and removes falsehoods of perception that eventually they will see if it aligns with the teachings or not.

As far as intense study (Jnana), it's traditionally believed that through philosophy, theology and science one will be able to discern the nature of the self and of reality.

Hinduism doesn't say "this one thing is the only way" rather we have sets of different schools of thought that can get along.because we all seek to discern the nature of the soul and liberate ourselves from the bondage of the ego to be no longer ignorant of/separated from X, Y or Z (can either be impersonal like Brahman (not a god) for nondual vedanta, personal like Krishna with Viashnavas (a god), as a nondual and dual example but the Z could be something totally different and not at all like a god or the previous two or even saying that person becomes godlike).

We're not some monolithic religion and actually people like me follow a totally different linage. For example Trika traces through the Shiva Sutras of Vasugupta, then the Bhairava Tantras and then other Tantric texts which were largely independent from the more southern Vedic sects. Actually I'm about as far as you can be from the Vedas (although it bears mentioning that a totally different version of the Bhagvad Gita, I've read, bears some relevance although I don't know anything about it myself).

My point is, you can't just lump us in with Muslims and Christians like that! We are so fundamentally different from the Abrahamic religions. They each pretty much have one or two collections of books per sect or religion. We have many and the most important ones to the majority of us predate any gods and are said to be known to be true not on faith but by practice. We literally go out and see if it's true for ourselves.

 

[Kapalika]

^ speaking of 'toilet paper ... text', the above demonstrates a lovely balance of snotty arrogance and sloppy straw man construction. So, for example, one can believe that religious texts are inspired by, or the word of, god without deeming them to be either infallible or literally true.

This actually reminds me that the Puranas seem to be contradictory but it's resolved with pluralism in that the way they are written overall isn't literal and more of a collection of stories, myths and history.

Forgot to mention the Puranas as another important set of texts in my last post that defy his description. It's in a totally different lineage to my sect so it easily slipped my mind. (Trika's forefathers such as the Kapalikas only shared roots with Puranic Shaivism in that they both worshiped Rudra in his earliest forms).

Haha my name came up. Neat.

 

[metis]

^ speaking of 'toilet paper ... text', the above demonstrates a lovely balance of snotty arrogance and sloppy straw man construction. So, for example, one can believe that religious texts are inspired by, or the word of, god without deeming them to be either infallible or literally true. Furthermore, one can hold such a belief while fully acknowledging it to be a matter of faith rather than demonstrable fact.

One suspects that the OP's intent is to discredit theism by pummeling circular argumentation. If true, its author is simply employing one fallacy (argumentum ad logicam) while railing against another (circulus in demonstrado).

Ya beat me to da punch.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

^ speaking of 'toilet paper ... text', the above demonstrates a lovely balance of snotty arrogance and sloppy straw man construction. So, for example, one can believe that religious texts are inspired by, or the word of, god without deeming them to be either infallible or literally true. Furthermore, one can hold such a belief while fully acknowledging it to be a matter of faith rather than demonstrable fact.

One suspects that the OP's intent is to discredit theism by pummeling circular argumentation. If true, its author is simply employing one fallacy (argumentum ad logicam) while railing against another (circulus in demonstrado).

Not trying to discredit all branches of theism in this post.....that's another topic entirely. Simply pointing out that all arguments that claim a supposed "sacred text" is the word of a god are based upon circular reasoning.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Perhaps that is because your "professionals" are merely apologists, also known as "liars for Jesus". And you have demonstrated a complete lack of judgment when it comes to the sciences. I am willing to discuss the evidence that tells us your beliefs about Genesis are false. Why are you afraid to support your claims? It appears that you have no evidence.

I can explain to you how we know that there was no flood. I doubt if you can substantiate your claim about evidence for your beliefs.

"Liars for Jesus" hahaha I like that one. Reminds me of a video I watched where Aron Ra explained his deconversion from Christianity, which happened only a few hours after his "conversion experience." He said he felt euphoria after having "accepted" Jesus. But a few hours later, it occurred to him that it may have just been his imagination getting the best of him, so he asked his Christian friend how he could be sure the conversion was genuine and his friend said something like "Just keep tellin' yourself it's Jesus until you believe it." He said at that moment he realized just how dishonest "faith" is and gave it up altogether lol

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think people can be divinely inspired is ok and everything but with too much excess can become hubris. What I mean is these people who are writing these sacred texts make some serious claims if they say they have a direct connect to god. At some point I'm wondering why I'm not reading the cure for cancer or something. Anything "divinely inspired" should at the very least be more than we can personally come up without reading a book about it first.

I sometimes wonder just what is the difference between "divine" inspiration and just inspiration? What is it makes inspiration "divine" in the first place?

I see no difference or exceptional of note other than the added term "divine" tacked on.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I sometimes wonder just what is the difference between "divine" inspiration and just inspiration? What is it makes inspiration "divine" in the first place?

I see no difference or exceptional of note other than the added term "divine" tacked on.

I assume divine means inspired by a divinity.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I assume divine means inspired by a divinity.

Givin the lack of substance by which it is labled as such, makes such an identifier pretty useless. There no real discernment between divine inspiration and inspiration as it stands.

 

[YmirGF]

As a long time Mozart lover I'm hard pressed to think of any human animal who was more divinely inspired. Given that he never made copies or edited his music lends credence to this assumption. (For those in the slow lane, I'm not meaning divinely in the theistic sense.)

 

[idav]

I sometimes wonder just what is the difference between "divine" inspiration and just inspiration? What is it makes inspiration "divine" in the first place?

I see no difference or exceptional of note other than the added term "divine" tacked on.

To me it's about what the singularity was, we are still that singularity stretched to infintismal "space" which really doesn't exist per se. Does this mean we can tap into some realm that gives us omniscience, IDK, we certainly know we are limited at the macro scale but how is it that we have more limitless potential at the micro? How is it that we are still the singularity and what does that mean metaphysically and ontologically?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not trying to discredit all branches of theism in this post.....that's another topic entirely. Simply pointing out that all arguments that claim a supposed "sacred text" is the word of a god are based upon circular reasoning.

... only by virtue of imposing the most limiting definition of "the word of god." Well done! You achieved the trivial with a near comical sense of purpose.