Formally Disproving Divine Command Theory

[archangle]

logical fallacy.

we would first have to start with proving the bible "true" literally. That can't be the case, so using the bible to disprove the bible is as dumb as proving the bible with the bible.

The term "fallacy" generally refers to contradictions within an argument that render the argument invalid. An argument can be valid even if the truth of its premises are in doubt. If we had to "prove" every single premise, all of philosophy and scientific theory would be thrown out the window. FallentoReason is perfectly justified in making his assumptions.

err, I would look up definition. But I see why you accept his claims.
proving a bible false with a bible is not valid. It really doesn't matter if 10 of us say it is. It makes 10 of us look stupid. I mean you can accept it. It reminds me of one theist saying "yeah, I agree, he walked on water." and they use that to justify their stance. It's still Bullsit. Just like this bullsit. It just fits your belief so you find it appealing.

---

we would first have to start with proving the bible "true" literally. That can't be the case, so using the bible to disprove the bible is as dumb as proving the bible with the bible.

Wrong. I've assumed the Bible to be true, and from there one would expect things to be internally consistent within this assumed world-view, but the OP shows otherwise. That's a valid argument because I'm saying assuming p,q => ~(if p then q). The argument would be invalid if the assumptions are correct and the conclusion is false.

well, this is what they call "flat out Bullshit". You have no evidence of a literal true bible. But you run with it. If the shoes help you, ware 'em. The road of life is rocky, and we use what we can. Some need the bible as literally true and some need it laterally false to make self "better" or more "real".

I sit looking at both sides with slack-jaw-disbelief.