The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[WesOlsen]

As is using your senses to justify the reliability of your senses, using your memory to justify the reliability of your memory, making logical arguments to justify your use of logic, appealing to your perception of reality in order to justify the reliability of your ability to perceive reality. Why is it okay for you to use circular reasoning but not for the Christian to?

These actions can be corroborated by external agents. We can ask others to verify our coordinates, our appearence, our actions etc. Of course if our entire perception of reality is somehow skewed then we're talking a higher realm of philosophy and it would take away everything from your claims as well as anyone elses. If we assume that the present order of things is consistent however, and we're not running on the assumption that a piece of religious propaganda is evidence of its own bombastic claims, then we can demonstrate that the new testament has essentially no external corroboration, that is, we cannot ask others to test it in the hear and now because it is not an unfolding or interactive entity unlike a person. At least if I wanted to demonstrate the accuracy of my sensory perception of say, a coloured puzzle, I could at least corroborate interpretations with others. No need to remind you of how important the scientific approach is, with its openess to PEER REVIEW, so that others may REPEAT the test so as to evaluate the claim, and if so IMPROVE the test or CONDUCT another test to demonstrate alternative/supporting results........something you can't do with jesus or father christmas or Dave the pixie cat.

As I say, this is only circular reasoning if you want to be pedantic and assault the notion of perception directly, and as I say if this was indeed the case then it would be applicable to all of us, thus nullifying your arguments as well as ours. Using the bible as evidence for the bible is pure, unadulterated circular reasoning.

Sure it is, everyone assumes the Bible is the word of God in one way or another.

Speak for yourself

Fairy tales.

It becomes a much more valid hypothesis when it fits in to a wider framework of demonstratable, evidence based enquiry, which calls on many different branches of science to build a bigger picture. We may use terms like 'theory' in science but at least they can be tested and re-tested, unlike ludicrous bedtime stories about a flying and talking cross flying out of the tomb of Jesus, a fantastic and hillarious event which sadly cannot be replicated in the laboratory.

Sure there is, reality only makes sense if we do so.

I'm beginning to wonder. Maybe we can justify the authority of Islamic scripture using this same crude reasoning? I assume your critical reasoning skills are only suspended when it comes to your own religion.

Fortunately Christian Theism is true and we actually can possess knowledge.

Fortunately christian theism is baseless foolishness and we actually can possess knowledge.

We do not know everything, but He who does has revealed many things to us.

Joseph Smith did much of the revealing if I recall, entertaining stuff, or was it Mohammed? DERP DERP which one to chose?

You have done nothing to support your assertion that Christians are somehow disallowed from appealing to the authority of scripture

The evidence based approach allows us to develop medicine which demonstratably works. The religious appeal to authority makes a few predictions (depending on which bedtime stories you're reading) and not many of them were realised. We all draw our lines somewhere, you just drew yours in lah lah land.