Too often a discussion on the question of whether or not God exists comes down, in part, to the belief one has in the divinity of scriptures, such that it comes across as a case of believing God exists because it says so in the scriptures, and the scriptures are correct because they are divinely inspired.
So apparently circular reasoning.
Now this may not be the argument that the person holds, but it is how it too often comes across.
The scriptures are put forward as the authority on the attributes of God, for understanding God.
So the question: on what basis does scripture have authority on the question of God?
Is it simply a matter of faith that they are divinely inspired (thus the apparent circularity)?
Is it that the scriptures contain nuggets of facts about some things that then gives them credence for what they say about other things?
If so why do we not apply this to other written texts, such as works of historical fiction?
Or is it simply that we are taught to accept them as such, just as those who taught us were themselves taught, and those teachers before them?
I.e. It is a tradition rather than any inherent correctness in what they claim to be an authority on?
And to be clear, I am using the term "authority" here in the sense that they are the place to go for the best notion of God.
So please no equivocating.
And I am inquiring as someone who has not personally awarded them special status of deserving authority.
I can fully understand why one would deem them the best place for understanding God once they have committed to their divine inspiration etc, but on what basis do we commit to such?
And no quoting of scripture, please, as that would be begging the question.
Thanks
So apparently circular reasoning.
Now this may not be the argument that the person holds, but it is how it too often comes across.
The scriptures are put forward as the authority on the attributes of God, for understanding God.
So the question: on what basis does scripture have authority on the question of God?
Is it simply a matter of faith that they are divinely inspired (thus the apparent circularity)?
Is it that the scriptures contain nuggets of facts about some things that then gives them credence for what they say about other things?
If so why do we not apply this to other written texts, such as works of historical fiction?
Or is it simply that we are taught to accept them as such, just as those who taught us were themselves taught, and those teachers before them?
I.e. It is a tradition rather than any inherent correctness in what they claim to be an authority on?
And to be clear, I am using the term "authority" here in the sense that they are the place to go for the best notion of God.
So please no equivocating.
And I am inquiring as someone who has not personally awarded them special status of deserving authority.
I can fully understand why one would deem them the best place for understanding God once they have committed to their divine inspiration etc, but on what basis do we commit to such?
And no quoting of scripture, please, as that would be begging the question.
Thanks