The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[Duck]

What evidence do you have that your senses are reliable? Do not appeal to your senses or else you’re using circular reasoning.
What evidence do you have that your memory is reliable? Do not appeal to memories or else you are using circular reasoning.
What evidence do you have that logic exists? Do not answer with a logical argument or else you are using circular reasoning.
What evidence do you have that your brain accurately perceives reality? Do not appeal with anything originating in your brain or else you are using circular reasoning.

You believe all of these are true and yet you cannot justify any of them without circular reasoning. How is it fair for you to do this but not fair for a Christian to rely upon the authority of scripture? Fair is fair.

I have evidence that my eyes are reliable. I see a wall. I can reach out a touch the wall. I can lean something against it. Obviously the only evidence I can gather comes in via my senses, so as a collective they can only evidence themselves via themselves. I operate under the assumption that my senses work. The fact that I am still here, able to walk and haven't crashed my car, is a form of evidence for the reliability of my eyes.

Again for memory. It is the way we study for tests. I read a textbook, try and remember the content, and then see if I can remember it. I can test my memory by answering questions on the topic. If I get stuff correct (I check by referring back to the book) my memory seems to be functioning.

Logic doesn't really exist, it is a concept. The validity of logic is hard to examine; in order for logic to function it requires you to accept its axioms.

On accurately perceiving reality, I refer you back to the idea that I haven't crashed my car, fallen down the stairs or burnt my house down. I appear to reliably interact with my surrounding and perceiving them accurately would seem to be a necessary condition.

None of these things is like using your senses to read a book and then divorcing yourself from reality and believing it is true without evidence. Using the book itself to justify the book is circular reasoning in that you have to assume your conclusion in order to make your argument. It is like you needing to assume a table is flat in order to show it is flat. It is silly. You can make assumptions before making an argument (often to simplify reality to allow it to be examined with more ease), but the assumptions cannot be the conclusion, or the argument is completely pointless; you are asking the person to assume you are right before you start the argument.

---

Also, you said
"You believe all of these are true and yet you cannot justify any of them without circular reasoning. How is it fair for you to do this but not fair for a Christian to rely upon the authority of scripture? Fair is fair."

We cannot operate in any way, physical or mental, without operating under the assumption our senses are reporting reality. The same is in no way true about the bible.

Fair? What the hell are you on about. Are you a kid appealing to the teacher? its not FAIR!?! MIIISSSS! the nasty people are asking for evidence for my ludicrous belief in an invisible sky god! its so mean!

Scripture has no authority, and there is no reason to attach any to it. There IS reason for our senses. There is no justification to attach authority to scripture. It is just a sanctimonious pile of self serving BS that has caused pain, misery, suffering and death for 2000 years. Time for it to go.