All "Divine Inspiration" Arguments are fallacious

[Rational Agnostic]

... 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.

Of course it's trivial. Why can't they acknowledge the fallacy?

 

[Nakosis]

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?

Psychiatry calls Jesus a paranoid schizophrenic!

Yes, I realize the link is an argument against this view.

Still I wonder if this might be true of all Prophets. Folks who heard voices and had thoughts of grandeur, who happen to be in the right place in the right time to gain a significant following.

Folks in Israel were oppressed by both the Romans and the religious hierarchy. Along comes a slightly schizophrenic individual claiming to be the Son of God forgiving the sick, deformed, the prostitutes, a champion for the poor and impoverished. Telling them that if they suffer through the toils of this life with faith in God, they are promised a magnificent afterlife in the presence of a God who loves them unconditionally.

What the heck else do they have to look forward to except more suffering and eventual death.

Or some prophet who gains the ear of a king by interpreting a dream or predicting victory in a battle.

Perhaps nothing more than a schizophrenic in the right place at the right time.

This is possible and doesn't require a supernatural explanation. Or if you prefer the supernatural, there's always religion.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

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.

What are the failed prophecies you are referring to? Fulfilled prophecy is one of the things that convince me the Bible is the word of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What are the failed prophecies you are referring to? Fulfilled prophecy is one of the things that convince me the Bible is the word of God.

There are countless failed prophesies and one must really strain to even claim that a prophesy is fulfilled. This is an honesty test for you. The most obviously failed prophesy is the Tyre prophesy.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

There are countless failed prophesies and one must really strain to even claim that a prophesy is fulfilled. This is an honesty test for you. The most obviously failed prophesy is the Tyre prophesy.

Please elaborate a little, and tell me more specifically what you are referring to. Give a verse and tell me what you thought was supposed to have happened, that didn't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please elaborate a little, and tell me more specifically what you are referring to. Give a verse and tell me what you thought was supposed to have happened, that didn't.

Ezekiel 26. Nebuchadnezzar was supposed to utterly destroy Tyre. He did not. There are all sorts of apologetics to explain that but all of them can easily be shown to be merely liars for Jesus.

ETA: You do realize that you just lost the debate. You claimed to have studied the Bible and were convinced by "fulfilled prophecies". Yet you were unaware, or you are going to have to be dishonest, about this terribly failed prophecies.

Plus you do realize that when Christians claim "hundreds of fulfilled prophecies" that they are guilty of quote mining. Verses are taken out of context and said to be prophecies about Jesus. When looked at in context one finds that is not the case.

 

[Scott C.]

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.

That is not the reasoning that I use as a Mormon. I believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God because I asked God and I believe that he answered me by the power of the Holy Ghost and told me that it's his word. Now, I'm not going to debate here whether or not I really received such inspiration from God. I can hear the arguments against me and I know my responses, but I've already been down that path several times. My point now is simply that I don't believe the Book of Mormon to be true because it declares itself to be true. I believe it's true because the Spirit of God declares it to be true. Those are very different arguments.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

That is not the reasoning that I use as a Mormon. I believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God because I asked God and I believe that he answered me by the power of the Holy Ghost and told me that it's his word. Now, I'm not going to debate here whether or not I really received such inspiration from God. I can hear the arguments against me and I know my responses, but I've already been down that path several times. My point now is simply that I don't believe the Book of Mormon to be true because it declares itself to be true. I believe it's true because the Spirit of God declares it to be true. Those are very different arguments.

Fair enough. So why is your argument more valid than the evangelical's argument who says he heard from God and God told him the book of mormon is a work of Satan? I'm sure you can see the problem.....I have no problem with your personal beliefs based on fallacious, emotionally-based reasoning, as long as you don't try to impose them on me or anyone else who thinks differently.

 

[Matheusc9v9]

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?

Yeah, I agree, partially. Maybe the best expression is ''inspired by god(s), centuries ago, possibly modified according to peoples desires and mistranslations through the ages''. They insist to say ''word of god'' because that way you cannot argue against it. In the case of the Bible, if it is the absolute Word of God, and God is Unique, why there are hundreds of subdivisions and sects? God is Perfect and also is his Word. The Logos created the Universe. Ineffable. So how can you put the Word of God on some papers, using a poor human language, a lot of unknown and ancient symbolism, resulting in nothing but misunderstanding, and keeping saying it's perfect?
I believe in the importance Holy Scriptures, whatever they say. What it really says, that's the problem.

-Just my thoughts, thanks for your attention-

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is not the reasoning that I use as a Mormon. I believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God because I asked God and I believe that he answered me by the power of the Holy Ghost and told me that it's his word. Now, I'm not going to debate here whether or not I really received such inspiration from God. I can hear the arguments against me and I know my responses, but I've already been down that path several times. My point now is simply that I don't believe the Book of Mormon to be true because it declares itself to be true. I believe it's true because the Spirit of God declares it to be true. Those are very different arguments.

The problem with that is that can, and does, apply to any religion. Believers in the religion ask their god for confirmation and get it all of the time. There is a saying that applies here, only one at the most can be right, but they all can be wrong.

Faith and prayer is not a route to a true belief.

 

[blü 2]

they argue that the texts themselves state that they are written by a god

Nowhere in the Tanakh does the Tanakh claim to written by God, or to be inerrant, or anything else. Nowhere in the NT does the NT make any such claim either.

Just as well, too, since anyone who reads them will recognize them as of all too human authorship.

(It's sometimes claimed that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says 'scripture' ─ which since there was then not yet an NT can only mean the Tanakh ─ is inerrant. In fact it says nothing of the kind, merely praises its utility. Other verses get cited too but none of them actually makes such a claim.)

 

[idav]

The problem with that is that can, and does, apply to any religion. Believers in the religion ask their god for confirmation and get it all of the time. There is a saying that applies here, only one at the most can be right, but they all can be wrong.

Faith and prayer is not a route to a true belief.

It's hope vs despair, do you have faith in humanity or we can believe we will end up offing ourselves or nature will take care of the issue one way or another. But belief one way or another into the future is still entirely subject to our choices and things we may or may not be able to predict so my recommendations is to see things with courage and leave fear to the imaginings of the weak minded. That's what faith entails to me.

 

[Apologes]

Inspiration of the scriptures can be argued for based on deductive arguments once one has established the existence of God in question. Circular reasoning need not be a part of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's hope vs despair, do you have faith in humanity or we can believe we will end up offing ourselves or nature will take care of the issue one way or another. But belief one way or another into the future is still entirely subject to our choices and things we may or may not be able to predict so my recommendations is to see things with courage and leave fear to the imaginings of the weak minded. That's what faith entails to me.

I have a reasonable hope that man will not commit suicide. By the way, global warming itself won't kill us. It will merely harm many many people around the world. Even if we foolishly do nothing it will not kill us, I hope. What is more dangerous are the potential wars that could arise because of our abuse of the environment. Are you familiar with Dr. Malthus? Sooner or later his predictions have to come true if we do not get control over our own populations. China is right now a net food importer. The entire continent of Africa is on the verge of being a net food importer. That can only go so far before the world starts to run out of food.

 

[David T]

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?

Oh please you are relying on religion to understand the topic. That's like asking someone about how to go about playing guitar and they turn the radio as how to play a guitar.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Inspiration of the scriptures can be argued for based on deductive arguments once one has established the existence of God in question. Circular reasoning need not be a part of it.

Ok....but no one has established the existence of any god in question.

 

[Jane.Doe]

Fair enough. So why is your argument more valid than the evangelical's argument who says he heard from God and God told him the book of mormon is a work of Satan?

That person can do as so dictated by their own study and conscious. I will do the same, looking through my eyes.

I'm sure you can see the problem.....I have no problem with your personal beliefs based on fallacious, emotionally-based reasoning

Note: from the LDS perspective there's a big difference between my emotions and listening to God.

as long as you don't try to impose them on me or anyone else who thinks differently.

LDS actually value your right believe and worship according to your own conscious it's literally stated and protected in our Articles of Faith.

 

[Apologes]

Ok....but no one has established the existence of any god in question.

I beg to differ as I take natural theology to be successful. Be that as it may, inspiration is a theological question which can only be meaningfully asked if there is a God. Hence it should be of little interest to an atheist.

 

[12jtartar]

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?

Hubert Farnsworth,
True Christians believe what the Holy Scriptures say, because in many places the Bible states truths that no one knew at the time of writing, and many things that man cannot know, because of Epistemological failings, Job 37:5. I can see that you fail on many levels, because you, evidently have only a nodding acquaintance with the Bible. Only a person with barely a superficialist or even more likely terra Incognita.
Many of the prophecies recorded in the Bible came true at exactly the time fortold, and so accurately that some people believed that they were written after they came true. Daniel wrote about the coming of Christ, or Messiah 483 years before he came, exactly on time. The Jews that were familiar with the prophecy, were in anticipation of the Messiah, and they though that John the Baptist was the Messiah, Luke 3:15, Daniel 9:24-27.
The great King Cyrus was mentioned by name 200 years before he conquered Old Babylon, Isaiah 44:28, 45:1-3. God had written exactly how Cyrus would conquer Babylon, which seemed to be impossible. Man cannot tell what will happen the next day, Eccleasties 8:7, 10:14.
Another thing to think about; there were 613 Laws in the Mosaic slaw Covenant, with many concerning hygiene. No person knew about the causes of diseases in those days, but God had Moses write the laws for the Jews protection.
The. Bible has recorded that the earth is round, something that was not known by any human in 1513BC., Job 26:10, Isaiah 40:22. The Bible says that the earth is, hanging on nothing, Job 26:7. Even you have read about all the myths written in past centuries about how the earth was held in place.
One prohibition that was very remarkable, was about pork, which they were not to eat. Just think about the lives that were saved, by not eating pork in those days, without refrigeration. Everyone would have had cirosis of the liver, Deuteronomy 14:8.
The Bible said that the hare chewed the cud, Deuteronomy 14:7. It was only in the 18th century that it was finally proven true, for many people claimed the Bible was wrong.
There was a long range prophecy that Daniel wrote about, that amounted to 2,520 years. This prophecy concerned the time when Jesus would receive his Crown as the Messianic King of the Kingdom, Revelation 6:2, 12:5. This prophecy began in 607 BC and ended in 1914 CE. This date marked, what is called The last days, and would be a time of wars and just about every kind of trouble. This time began with WW2, and nothing but ears and diseases, earthquakes, famines, just as Jesus stated in Matthew chapter 24, Mark 13, Luke 21.
Maybe, the most remarkable prophecy was written at Psalms 12:6,7, where God says that He would protect His words from every generation. In spite of people like you who have tried to destroy the Bible, or keep it in a language nobody could speak, or tried to misrepresent it, or try to find fault with it, still the Bible is the most widely trusted Book of all time, and has caused more good changes in mankind than anything in history.
There was a very smart man in the first century who stated to Jewish rulers, that they should be careful of what they intended to do to the Apostles. He told them that if what they were doing was from God they could very well be actually fighting against God, Acts 5:34-40.
Agape!!!

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Ezekiel 26. Nebuchadnezzar was supposed to utterly destroy Tyre. He did not. There are all sorts of apologetics to explain that but all of them can easily be shown to be merely liars for Jesus.

ETA: You do realize that you just lost the debate. You claimed to have studied the Bible and were convinced by "fulfilled prophecies". Yet you were unaware, or you are going to have to be dishonest, about this terribly failed prophecies.

Plus you do realize that when Christians claim "hundreds of fulfilled prophecies" that they are guilty of quote mining. Verses are taken out of context and said to be prophecies about Jesus. When looked at in context one finds that is not the case.

What I realize now is that you are claiming to be the debate winner without any discussion - proving to me that no amount of evidence would convince you. So why should I waste any time to even try. You will claim I am dishonest unless I agree to your false claims. Talk about being closed minded.