Ok let me rephrase...?

Question

Imagine person A says "Every belief should be supported by evidence" and B responds "How do you know that?"

Person A can't say "Because there is evidence to support that" otherwise they would be confirming their belief by appealing to that same belief.

This would be like saying "The Bible is true, it says so right here in the Bible."

Get me?

Thanks guys. These calmer, well-thoughtout answers make a lot of sense.

Answer 1

This is a matter of major philosophical debate, fideism versus logical positivism (I think)...

Basically, we believe in evidence because there is no other choice. It is not because of faith, but because the alternative is absurd.

Answer 2

You are getting hung up on semantics here.

The statement " I believe that there is a small Spode teapot in orbit around Jupiter"

And the statement "I believe we should go home via the grocery store"

Use the word 'believe' in very different ways.

The first is faith. Despite the total lack of evidence of the allegation the person if going to think this is true.

The second is knowledge and experience. Possibly they know that they are out of milk and bread and need to go to the store. Or maybe they heard there was an accident on the other route.

Person A is misusing the word 'belief'.

Answer 3

The statement "Every belief should be supported by evidence" is what is called an axiom (a self evident statement), nott a "fact" or a "belief". Therefore, it would be exempt from itself. So your agrument is illogical.

As for the idea of using the Bible to defend itself, I would like to know what else you could possibly use?

If you want to support the historical accuratcy of it, you would have to being by looking at the book. Sir William Ramsey did in the last century. Convinced that the Bible was flase, he set out of disprove it historically. Instead he spend the next 40 years confirming every single bit of Bible history he set out to disprove, until the Bible itself converted him and he bacame a Christian.

If you wanted to disprove the theology of the Bible, you would have to be like the late Dr FF Bruce, who set out to prove that the resurrection of Jesus could not have happened based on the text of the scripture. But no matter how many times he tried to rearrange the recorded events to disprove the resurrection, he could neve find a way to get the stome moved from in front of the tomb. He finally was converted by the scriptures, and became out of the leading Bible scholars of the last century.

If you wanted to show contradictions with the text and theology of the scripture, you would have to go to the text tiself to find them. General Lew Ayers (of Civil War fame) set out to do that in the late 1800's. He spend over 10 years and in the end was converted by the consistency of the teachings and theology of the text. He probably know him as the author of one of the best known Christian works of fiction, the novel Ben Hur.

You could be CS Lewis, who when confronted with the scriptures, was certain that the logics of it would fail. Instead, as he read the book, it was his logics which finally fell, and he became one of the greatest minds the Christian faith as ever produces. His books like "Mere Christianity" and "The Problem of Pain" have opened the minds of more people to a logical understanding of the Christian faith then any other person.

I could continue the list, but hopefully I have made my point. The best defense for the truthfulness of the Bible is the Bible itself. When a Christian quotes the scriptures, it is because they know that it can stand up against any arguments brought against it.

Answer 4

That evidence is evidence is self-evident. While in a vague, useless, technical sense Person A's answer is based on circular logic, its only premises are logical axioms, and therefore it is actually no more circular than any other argument you could possibly come up with for anything.
Any argument in which you present evidence is based on the unprovable assumption that logically consistent evidence suggests truth.

Answer 5

But the proper response to "How do you know that?" is as follows:

Evidence is the predictor. Evidence indicates that something is consistent, given similar circumstances. Without evidence, then we discover only that the entire universe is random. And while quantum physics indicates that SOME things at the subatomic level are random, at the level of our experience, the evidence of a belief means that it applies to real life.

Belief without evidence is simply superstition.

Answer 6

Why do we believe the facts presented in history textbooks? Because people who were alive when the events transpired reported it and we accept it as truth.

Although the Bible is much more than a history book, it does document historical events and the testimonies of people who lived during ancient times. The Bible has and will continue to withstand scrutiny. It has been preserved for over 2,000 years despite the countless attacks against it. Man has produced nothing to discredit it, and millions of lives have been changed because of the truths it holds. What seems to bother non-Christians is that the book's human authors credit God (and rightfully so) for their inspiration.

Answer 7

my answer is the best

how do i know its the best

cause i said so in my answer

oh and to anwer your question yes i do get you

EDIT: to claire y what she is trying to say is that when people (christians or whoever follows the bible ) are asked how do they know its the truth the usually answer because its in the bible and the bible is the word of god well how do you know its the word of God. Because its written here in the bible so do you understand now claire y?

Answer 8

You were clearer the first time.

there is one premise we have to accept before we can philosophize on anything else. that we exist. can we really prove that we exist? i guess not...so we have to suppose that is true. if that is not true, nothing we suppose matters anyway.

now, if we believe that we do exist....than, we have to use that as a premise to suppose that other things exist. god cannot be proven....the bible cannot be proven....and things like gravity and phsyics can be.

we shouldn't jump on board with anything that cannot and never will be able to be proven...like the existance of a god.

if my answer wasn't clear, its because neither was your question. what are you trying to prove. i guess, thank you for not asking the same question a third time.

Answer 9

Circular logic.... I had a lot of answers of this type indeed. It is too bad that there are so many people thinking this way ("the bible is true cause it sais so in the bible"), they are taking away the credibility of those who are smart indeed and have something to say

EDIT: to claire y: in the bible it is written that those words (from the bible) are the words of god

Answer 10

i am going to try here-a belief by definition doesnt need evidence-if there is evidence then its not a belief its fact-so i would never say a belief needs evidence---some might but i think to say that is foolish-if that is the point you are making then i agree--i can still think that your belief is foolish-think that of all beliefs but thats my opinion and you are entitled to yours---smile and enjoy the day