- Jul 2, 2011
- 4,532
- 541
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
This is one question I can't wrap my head around.
When I have asked, "How do you know that God is who he says he is?", the most frequent response is either one answer, the other or both.
- Bible verses are quoted
- He says he is
The problem with these are:
You can't use Bible verses as true, without first establishing that the speaker/source of the material is telling the truth.
You can't say whether God is lying by saying, "God cant/doesn't lie", because he defined himself that way. That is circular logic.
To accept he is who he says he is, first we have to believe his claims. If he gets to validate his claims, by simply saying they are valid because they can't be otherwise, all we have established is that, he got to make those claims about himself.
That in no way validates any of his claims.
I fell I should give an example of the circular logic part, because it seems to be used a lot.
Me: "How do you know he is who he says he is and not someone else?"
Christian: "Because he is the truth and perfect. He can not."
Me: "And how do you know that he actually is those things?"
Christian: "Because it/he says so in the Bible."
Me: "And who wrote the Bible?"
Christian: "Man, but the Bible is God's word, not man's. God would not allow His Holy Word to be corrupted by man."
Me: "Ok. So, how do you know God wasn't giving man misinformation?"
Christian: "Because he is the truth and perfect. He can not..."
When I have asked, "How do you know that God is who he says he is?", the most frequent response is either one answer, the other or both.
- Bible verses are quoted
- He says he is
The problem with these are:
You can't use Bible verses as true, without first establishing that the speaker/source of the material is telling the truth.
You can't say whether God is lying by saying, "God cant/doesn't lie", because he defined himself that way. That is circular logic.
To accept he is who he says he is, first we have to believe his claims. If he gets to validate his claims, by simply saying they are valid because they can't be otherwise, all we have established is that, he got to make those claims about himself.
That in no way validates any of his claims.
I fell I should give an example of the circular logic part, because it seems to be used a lot.
Me: "How do you know he is who he says he is and not someone else?"
Christian: "Because he is the truth and perfect. He can not."
Me: "And how do you know that he actually is those things?"
Christian: "Because it/he says so in the Bible."
Me: "And who wrote the Bible?"
Christian: "Man, but the Bible is God's word, not man's. God would not allow His Holy Word to be corrupted by man."
Me: "Ok. So, how do you know God wasn't giving man misinformation?"
Christian: "Because he is the truth and perfect. He can not..."