The Bible and Circular Reasoning

The example you gave for "Circular Reasoning" seems to be straight off of an amateur atheist website, so why use it? 

If bad websites happen to use good examples, it has no effect on the quality of the example. This is an example of the genetic fallacy . I use this example because, unfortunately, it is still a common fallacy used and because it is clearly demonstrates the fallacy.

...can't possibly be fit into the simpleton narrative you indicated.

But it does—perfectly. If I am understanding you correctly, you are actually one of the people who think "The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible" is a reasonable argument? You think this is okay because there were many authors to the Bible who wrote over centuries? If this is the case, you really need to consider your theological biases you may have then take this argument up on a debate site. I am guessing you don't believe this, and think that the Bible is the Word of God for a myriad of reasons having to do with the history of the Bible and perhaps personal experience, which is different from "The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible."

Hi, The Great Corhniolio PhD!

In his encyclopedia article on circular reasoning, Dr. Bennett wrote that the following argument is circular.

The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is, in the Bible. [I replaced the ellipses with a comma]

Call that argument 1. You, however, The Great Corhniolio PhD, are defending the position that the following argument is not circular.

The Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it's the word of God.

Call this argument 2. Arguments 2 is a different argument from argument 1. Notice how significantly different the premises are from each other. The premise of argument 1 effectively says that God spoke to us through the Bible (which seems to be what the arguer is suppose to be showing: that the Bible is God’s Word). The premise of argument 2 just says that there is a passage in the Bible that says the Bible is God’s word. Even if you are right that the second argument is not circular, you have not actually shown that the first argument, the one in Dr. Bennett’s encyclopedia page, is not circular. They are different arguments.

Thank you, The Great Corhniolio PhD.

From, Kaiden

quoting a book is not "Circular Reasoning" but claiming the book is true because the book says so would be.

Obviously, you don't quite grok what we do here nor show any appreciation for the guidelines we follow for determining logical fallacies. So let me restate...

Dr. Bo's Criteria for Logical Fallacies:

1.) It must be an error in reasoning not a factual error.

So, while you introduce your set of so-called "facts" about the Bible it is totally irrelevant. Dr. Bo is presenting an example of fallacious circular reasoning and says nothing about the Bible's authenticity or origins. It has nothing to do with atheism or anything other than pointing out a type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared.  

Logical Form:

X is true because of Y.

Y is true because of X.

So your little rant is what we call an Ignoratio elenchi, or Red Herring, as the complaint has nothing to do with the example given.

Red Herring

Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

So you've missed the point entirely. 

 Obviously, you have your own set of biases about the Bible and take easy offense at a misconstrued (and ridiculously projected) supposed slight. The references to amateur atheism etc, are really nothing more than ad hominem, ad fidentia nonsense. 

"Challenge a person’s beliefs, and you challenge his dignity, standing, and power. And when those beliefs are based on nothing but faith, they are chronically fragile. No one gets upset about the belief that rocks fall down as opposed to up, because all sane people can see it with their own eyes. Not so for the belief that babies are born with original sin or that God exists in three persons or that Ali is the second-most divinely inspired man after Muhammad. When people organize their lives around these beliefs, and then learn of other people who seem to be doing just fine without them–or worse, who credibly rebut them–they are in danger of looking like fools. Since one cannot defend a belief based on faith by persuading skeptics it is true, the faithful are apt to react to unbelief with rage, and may try to eliminate that affront to everything that makes their lives meaningful." – Steven Pinker