Jesus, Least Fit Moral Judge

[Esquilax]

... I mean the idea that Surtr used circular reasoning. Please, kindly provide how he did so.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-16457-po...#pid387573

This is not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning requires that the premise be dependent on the premise being true, and that secondary definition of the word eonian remains true even if you were to redact any biblical references therein. Here, let me help you:

1. eonian - of or relating to a geological eon (longer than an era)
aeonian
2. eonian - continuing forever or indefinitely; "the ageless themes of love and revenge"; "eternal truths"; "life everlasting"; ageless, eternal, everlasting, perpetual, unceasing, unending, aeonian lasting, permanent - continuing or enduring without marked change in status or condition or place; "permanent secretary to the president"; "permanent address"; "literature of permanent value"

There. The same definition, with the biblical stuff taken out. Does it seem that different to you?

Now, that on its own wouldn't be enough evidence of anything. In fact, it would put Surtr's assertion that Definition 2 is correct on the same level as yours that Definition 1 is correct. But here's where things diverge, because Surtr wasn't content with simply stating that his definition was correct, he also went ahead and provided some facts to support that. Lemme help you out again, since you do seem to be having trouble with this:

Let me clear something up for you: There is no indication in the bible of where those souls would go if Hell was temporary, and when they are brought back in Revelations, they are cast back into the "lake of fire" after being judged again.

Like that. If Surtr was relying on the fact that the second definition he cited used biblical concepts to illustrate itself as his only argument, then yes he would be guilty of circular reasoning. However, he wasn't relying on that at all. He provided real evidence to back up his claim.

Will you do likewise?