Fallacy of Self-Representation (Biblical)

The Fallacy of Self-RepresentationThere are definitely MANY fallacies of debate. Choose to look them up if you will, but falling under one of these fallacies innately will cause your position to be essentially meaningless. I'm here to discuss the fallacy of Self-Representation, and its impacts on a religious debate.Examples are easily understood, so let's bring this into perspective.Joe is a big bully. He is the verdict of what is "cool" or not. Joe thinks that Bill is stupid. But, bill says otherwise. Bill tells Joe how he is an intelligent person and does well, and that Joe is wrong. Therefore, since Bill thinks he himself is smart, Joe innately must agree upon him, because Bill's word is true.Incorrect.The fallacy is that you CANNOT represent yourself if you are the one challenged.Bill, in this stance, is using a fallacy of self-representation. When the object of the accused is being challenged, you cannot use that object to defend itself. If Bill wants to be considered at his position, he cannot defend himself WITH himself. He needs to use another source, otherwise his evidence is falsely biased and innately fallacious.Continuing how to solve this fallacy.Bill thinks he is cool, so he brings his mother and a few friends to talk to Joe. The friends and mom talk it out and all decide bill is smart, because they witness Bill's success, and show his grades and scores to Joe.Another example.John is a Astronomer. John believes the Earth revolves around the Sun. Will is another Astronomer, but he believes that Earth revolves around the Moon. Will says that John is wrong. But, john shows, from his own research, exactly how the earth HAS to revolve around the sun. He quotes from his evidence, "The Earth's gravity is affected by the sun". It just HAS to be true, it's scientifically positive!Incorrect.Even with evidence, you CANNOT use the object in challenge to represent itself, as the EVIDENCE ITSELF is challenged.Here's how you solve it.Because Will does not agree, John decides to form a new experiment. John brings a committee of others that preset their ideas, and concludes their ideas. One member says how the Sun is the most masseuse object, another quotes our yearly rotation around the sun. Since they come from different AND viable sources that are not related to the previous accusations, they are legitimate evidences that can be accepted. Since Will sees this, he changes his opinion.Now, for the moment of truth. How it deals biblically. My FINAL example.Monica does not believe in Christianity, and that the bible is false. Sarah decides that she is going to try to prove her point in an argument. So, Sarah quotes from the bible, John 20:29 "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Well, Sarah MUST be true. Her own Bible has a defence against those who don't believe! Since Sarah can use the Bible as evidence for why the Bible is legitimate, she is definitely true.This falls under the same fallacy.When discussing the Bible, you cannot use the bible, or anything related to it, to defend it. Whether it be topics of creationism, whether religion is true or not, or essentially any point that is related to religion, you cannot use the challenged to represent itself. Since arguments behind Creationism, Pro-life, Religious validity, etc. are all based off the belief of the Bible, you cannot use the bible to defend your arguments. Instead, other points must be proved. And remember, things associated with the same point of view cannot be used, they must shine from a new perspective. In sense of biblical terms, or religion itself, the perspectives are generally "Fact" or "Faith"The correction.Sarah realizes that she cannot use her own bible to defend the fact that she believes. Sarah thinks the bible is Fact, and it might be so. But, since the bible is being challenged, she must use a different source. She would quote the Pope himself, or possible evidence that artifacts from the Bible truly exist. But, since she cannot use ideas associated with the aspect of the Bible, she cannot utilise these elements in the debate. So, Sarah is left with no choice but to argue outside the means of the bible, and use other forms of truth on the incidents. Sarah is left only with her aspect of faith, past what she believes is true from the bible. So, Sarah tells Monica that she believes in the Bible because she said so, and that Monica should believe too, because you just have to I suppose.Can you notice when the fallacy truly takes its shape in recognizing arguments?It's important to see how it truly makes sense. From the examples above and a definition of a fallacy, I think it's very reasonable to agree with my standpoint that this fallacy truly does exist. Post your arguments. And remember.Challenging the fallacy means you should not use what it entails. Essentially, do not try to bible quote or biblical evidence your way out of the argument.