Ok Guys:
I haven't even read this yet, don't have time right at this moment, so I thought I would post his next reply here. Please feel free to address his concerns:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I want to answer your questions but since I can only post in relatively short chunks I will concentrate on a single threat for now, if that's ok. Let's come back to the rest in a bit and try to take it one argument at a time.
Now, from your reply, I will make the assumption that you agree that your argument "the scriptures are the word of God, because the scriptures say so" is a circular argument (Circulus in demonstrando). So your argument now is that first I should explain why that's a bad thing, and second, prove that I'm not also using circular arguments.
First, I will talk about your argument. Since you use many logical fallacies to support your position (circular reasoning is only the major one), your arguments fit the definition of "illogical". Again, it is not my opinon, look it up in the dictionary, your arguments fit the dictionary and encyclopedia definition of
illogical since they use logical fallacies. It's not
my logic, or a particular flavour of logic, it's
the logic that you are pitted against here. If you want to start inventing a new definition of logic here where circular arguments are a good thing, that would be like the Buffalo Sabres inventing a new kind of Stanely cup where all the teams that get eliminated in the semi-fianals get to win the cup. So please, let's just agree first that we're using the same vocabulary here.
So your argument is illogical, because you're using logical fallacies to support it. Furthermore, by some definitions of "reason" your argument could be not be considered "reasonable" or "rational' because it is not in accordance with logic.
Now, obviously you're free to take an illogical position all you want. I do it all the time, for example this morning I didn't want to be late to work and yet I surfed the internet for a bit before leavning for work. I made myself more late for work because my emotional mind really wanted to look up Facebook, all the while I knew this was an illogical course of action since my first priority was to not be late for work. So I did something unreasonable.
---
The second part of your question was "why should this be avoided". Well, it makes your argument weak. If you want to convince someone, a strong way of arguing is that you both agree on A, then your argument is "A, therefore B". If the link between A and B is strong, then you will convince people that B is true because you already agreed A was true. In your case, the link is strong (it does say in the Bible that it is the word of God), but your A and B are the same. And since you and I never agree that A is a fact, then you're just using a disputed claim to justify a disputed claim. Do you see now why a circular argument is a bad thing?
Now your other point was "why do I claim that I'm not using a circular argument". Well, it's up to you to show me that I'm not using a circular argument if you're really convinced that I am, because I don't think I am. Remember, I am NOT starting with the presupposition that God does not exist or that the bible is not the word of God. Those are complex concepts that I don't personally think are conclusively proven or disproven. I try to only start from simple concepts, from an "A" that you and I can both agree on. Do you agree with me that when you throw a rock up in the air, it comes down? That's the kind of "A" scientific arguments start with.