I disagree, Jeff. I don't believe I'm suffering from anything except my medical conditions. Further, since I believe this is the only life I'm ever going to know, I live this life to its fullest and in the best way I can. I don't worry about what might come after; I don't do good deeds only because I think that if I don't, I'll burn for all eternity. I have absolutely no fear or concern about what might come and how it relates to what I do in this life. Now, why are you telling me I'm wrong? I could just as easily say the same for you. But I won't. Why won't I? Because no one can prove a negative. So, how about trying to prove a positive? Let me first say that I've read all of the major philosophical arguments for and against the existence of a god; they're not proof either way, but they do cancel each other out. I've also heard the tautological arguments; i.e.," I know the bible is the word of god. How do I know this? It says so right here in the bible." I know I'm conflating god and heaven, but I believe you're probably doing the same when you tell me I'm wrong.
Beth accuses me, and Yvonne commends her, of not recognizing that agnostics and atheists don't believe the Bible to be factual at all, so quoting it as indisputable "proof" is spinning one's wheels. Once again, as consistently done, she has grossly misrepresented what I said in the post. The fact is that I didn't detail at all what evidence exists for the Bible, yet alone quote from it. So, I feel no need to defend Beth's words or point, since they aren't mine. For any other rational viewers in this thread that fairly considered what I did say and pair it with Beth's unwarranted point, let me add a new comment: Should a Christian get an opportunity to discuss the Bible's authority with an Atheist, don't let the Atheist convince you that one can't use the Bible to defend the Bible. That would be like trying to prove that a $100 bill is genuine with the skeptic saying that you're not allowed to look at it in order to assess it. How can you show them the 7 counterfeit features, or lack thereof, without having a bill to look at. It's a rediculous proposition. Another example would be an assessment of the Islam religion. One effective way to discredit the false, man-made religion is to do a textual analysis of the Quran, comparing it both internally and eternally to the Bible's Old Testament, and historical (false) gnostic teachings. This is an extremely effective science unto itself that can provide strong evidence both for or against the validity of a written historical document. For anyone seeking truth about religions, I think the best path of apologetics research should start with evidence for God. As my post said, it is the awesomeness of creation and the laws of science that leads one to a powerful evidence for God. The Bible has consistent insights on the matter, but isn't a necessary factor to draw this conclusion. Once one recognizes the obvious existence of a creator, an intelligence, a mind, or a god of some sort, then the best research to determine which religions might represent that creator can involve archaeology, historical documents, and textual analysis of each religion's foundational scriptures. That alone will rule out most, if not all, false religions that were not already excluded by step one (like Buddhism). Only after examination of the world's false religions can one appreciate the Bible's unique features that demonstrate its divine inspiration. And, like assessing the $100 bill, one has to look at the Bible in order to make a fair assessment of it, though the Christian faith itself can be easily supported by hundreds of thousands of pages of other historical writings, both religious and secular. What my post did say was that the Bible excels above all other religions with authoritative evidence, and that would include an assessment of the manuscript numbers and continuity, a textual analysis of those manuscripts, outside source collaboration, historical records, archaeological finds, scientific insight, and fulfilled prophesy. Even today's leading Atheists recognize this evidence, choosing to dispute its interpretation or conclusions rather than deny its existence. So yes, one should certainly examine the Bible closely in order to assess the validity of Christianity - whether you believe it or not, it's the object of study, critique, and conclusions.
It's called a tautology or circular argument or begging the question. I'm citing one of my online lectures: BEGGING THE QUESTION (also called CIRCULAR ARGUMENT or TAUTOLOGY). This is an argument in which the conclusion is implied or assumed in the premises and vice-versa. Here's an paraphrase of what I used to use in my critical thinking classes: It says on Facebook that Honda's a great car. How do I know Honda's a great car? Easy -- it says so right here on Facebook. Exchange "bible" for car and you have: Of course the bible is the word of god! How do I know? It says so right here in the bible.
Per the last sentence: Examining a book closely does not mean memorizing it. It means to take each sentence and contemplate its meaning and relate the meaning to all of the other statements in the same book and other, similar writings.