1. On what authority do you know that the Bible you use is inspired at all? Even if the Bible somewhere claimed that authority for itself (which it doesn't) it wouldn't matter, because any book could say that (and false books like the Book of Mormon and the Koran do). A burning in the breast feeling also is not valid.
2. How do you even know what books are inspired and belong in the Bible you use? The table of contents is not inspired and some human being with requisite authority had to decide that, for example, the Gospel of John is in, and the Gospel of Barnabas is out.
3. What use would it be for God to throw us an infallible book if he were not going to provide an infallible interpretor? Otherwise every man, citing the gift of the Holy Spirit, would interpret the Bible for himself. This is exactly what has happened since Martin Luther resulting in the tens of thousand conflicting and contradicting denominations we have today. If this were God's plan, then the Holy Spirit is one of confusion, not truth.
I myself believe with all my heart that the 73 books found in my Bible are the inerrant, inspired word of God. But I have good, solid, biblical reasons for doing so. Other, people-- I'm afraid not so much. This is not because they are stupid (almost everybody is smarter than me), but because they have never fully thought through the implications of their assumptions on this topic, either because no one has pointed it out to them, or they have avoided the subject.
It is always better to put light on an idea rather than just heat. Here are some more considerations for those who are not afraid to peruse them:
The only problem is that the Muratorian fragment represents the approved canon of scripture in Rome, c. 180 A.D.
It has the NT, minus some missing pieces. It also contained the Revelation of Peter, a Gnostic text.
If the church in Rome then possessed infallibility, a Gnostic text would not have been within their canon.