Arguments Against Circular Reasoning

1. If a scientist were to assemble a living thing from nonliving parts, it would not disprove the Bible because the Bible doesn’t tell us that humans will not be able to put together a living thing, only that life is the creation of God.

Many people believe that Christians have to reject evolution in order to believe in the biblical account of creation in Genesis 1. Scholar and author John Walton, as well as physician, Francis Collins argue that this is not necessarily true. Walton reminds us that we have to read the Bible carefully, as it was not written for us but for the Israelites. Walton also argues that observing natural effects does not mean that we have to remove God from our thoughts. He cannot just reveal all the scientific details that were going to occur because the past generations would not understand. The Bible is the proof of His love and patience for humans, not a science textbook. Even though it was not for us, we still read it since the Scripture is

After several weeks of analyzing moral theory, the divine command theory prevails. Jehovah created us (page 7, Column 1) intrinsically valuable, in that we are each a temple, in and of ourselves. (Page 71 Column 1) Proven scientific knowledge includes the fact that in the 1769 King James Version (Isaiah 40:22), undisputedly references the circle of the earth. This is tantamount to believing in a higher being, which is in perfect accordance with the divine command theory, in that, the date of the aforementioned discovery by humankind was in the 15th century; only One Being could have shared this infinitesimal knowledge. The Bible is not a science book; it teaches through stories. However, whenever it makes an assertion relating to a

The Old Testament of the Holy Bible gives many examples which provide modern man with guidelines for the use of scientific method. Millam (2008) explains that there is an underlying order in nature demonstrated by the patterns and regularities of God’s creations. These regularities can be seen in the forces of nature and are stable throughout space and time (Millam, 2008). The original classification of species, use of precise measurement, and even the first account of scientific research, are all included in the Old Testament of the Holy Scriptures. God gives scientists some clear frames of reference for seeking knowledge and truth in science.

The Bible, one of the world’s most ancient works of literature established into a book several years ago, can be debated to be true or false. However, whether or not it is doesn’t matter because either way it is incredibly fascinating. There are some truths and mysterious secrets embedded within the Bible. I believe the Bible should be taken figuratively rather than literally. To think that a group of writers from the ancient past had integrated stories with important morals and philosophies. The Bible has remained relevant for centuries and unfortunately has been neglected by the ignorance by the generations of today. Believe it or not, languages and popular phrases have been passed from the Bible and they may not even realize it.

* In his book, Josh McDowell references and agrees with Wilbur Smith who says that the Bible is unique because it is the only volume of a book to ever be produced by a man that has a large amount of prophecies relating to individual nations (Israel), to all the people of the world, to certain cities, and about the coming of the Messiah.

What makes an argument ineffective is when using emotional appeals to distract a reader from a lack of evidence. Also the use of faulty reasoning, and inaccurate facts.

Too much of the Christian worldview’s attention is focused on reconciling the Bible with science and archaeological discoveries when it should be focused on redemption. The theme of the Bible could be summarized into four categories Creation,

Scientists has proved many points on how this earth came to be and how life formed. They can show evidence through many years of research and hard work to prove religion wrong. But they don't want to prove religion wrong, they just want religious people to accept the fact that science does exist and it's true. In “Transcript of Ken Ham vs Bill Nye Debate” describes the “arrogance” of religious people and how science is believable though many years of research. As seen in the article Ken Ham would always deny the fact that science isn't real or true and would always result back to the bible. Ham focused too much on historical science. As Nye requested of Ham, present your model, make a prediction, and then let’s observe if the data supports. Both evolution and creation models do have a historical element, but both should also have a predictable observable element. It's like so sad that he believes only in the bible and not trusting science. Science plays a big role in society because of all the strange phenomenal it explains. Like, physics and how it is in our everyday life even if we don't notice it to what is real, what is practical, and how things work. It's true on how science has become a major part of our lives even if we don't believe in it. People who just believe in their religion and not science need to start giving it a chance because it's just so sad and arrogant. Evolution tells us, in detail, what happens over time to populations of organisms in a complex

According to Galileo, nature is “immutable”, unchanging over time, and she “cares not a whit whether her abstruse reasons and methods are understandable to men”. Alternatively, the Bible, in order to “accommodate the understanding of everyman” is subject to interpretation “so as the bare meaning of the words is concerned”. Puzzling as both can be, new discoveries in nature may refute the theories of the Bible. It is dangerous to apply Bible scriptures to science because that would then limit the meanings of the scriptures. The Bible is based on limited and often theoretical conjecture and using passages taken from it to which are, perhaps not understood properly, are inappropriate and “ill-suited to their purposes”, as it is possible for the “Bible [to]…speak untruth”. Irrefutable evidence of the Sun and Earth’s movements was not available when the Bible was originally composed. Galileo thought it was self-serving of those in the church to condemn his findings, by “showing a great fondness for their own

Most arguments for the Genesis six day creation account stem from evidence against the Big Bang theory as the only two legitimate options for the origin of the universe are random choice or intelligent design. Therefore, anything that discredits the Big Bang model is building upon creationism. There have also been countless archaeological findings that support the relevance of the Bible. One example is that a number of Babylonian documents such as the Sumerian King List have been discovered that describe the same flood spoken of in Genesis Chapters 6-9. The Ark that Noah built and used

Due to the "highly subjective nature of most scientific theorizing... [we should] let the Bible speak for itself and modify our scientific view of origins accordingly." (as cited in Downey, D., & Porter, S., 2009).

I have not yet been confronted with the question, “Is the Bible trustworthy?”, but if someone asks me this question, I will reply yes, there is ample proof that the events in the Bible actually did happen. For example, archeology agrees with Scripture. Archeologists have found numerous Biblical items, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, chariot wheels in the Red Sea, stone inscriptions, and many other evidences that prove the Bible. Although the exact site has not been located yet, kings from surrounding nations documented Solomon’s golden kingdom in writing. A stone memorial that tells of a conflict between Moab and Israel presented in 2 Kings 3. In all, archaeology confirms the biblical accounts in more than 25,000 sites connected to biblical history.

Furthermore, there are those who use science as a form to rebut against major historical, biblical facts, for science is a system that acquires knowledge through observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena, in other words, it speaks to the “how and when.” As a result, it can be contend that when there is not enough factual evidence to support the claim that the Bible cannot be solidified in the views of some skeptics, it would forever produce a negative response because the Bible was written between 1500-2000 years ago, and there is not enough evidence to investigate. Likewise, there are some theologians who argue the authenticity of the Bible. Elwell proposes, “Those who reject inerrancy argue that this doctrine

However, to the point of God actually existing I am skeptical. Many people turn to the Bible to bring proof to the table of any doubters like myself. While the bible brings forth some interesting facts that we all would like to believe, it does not necessarily make them true. The bible is not evidence itself because it cannot be confirmed as it is thousands of years old. Who knows, it could have been mistaken to be a bible when it was really just a compilation of short stories over a long period of time. Another claim that tries to prove god is real, is Decartes 3rd Meditation which states; If we have a clear and distinct idea of god, than a cause must be as great as its effect this idea cannot come from an imperfect thing like myself. Therefore, God must exist.(Pojman128) This would be true if the first two points could not be challenged. I can simply deny ever having the idea of god, and no evidence is provided for the second idea it is just an assertion that we, apparently an imperfect thing can ever think of something that we are not, which is simply not true. Perfection is based on the eye of the beholder, we all have different ideas of perfection, whether it is great being of pureness, greatness or whatever the case may be. I also choose bring about Bertrand Russell’s argument that since God is all-loving, all-knowing, and