We say that God is the beginning of knowledge. Without Him, we cannot know anything. We say therefore that the Bible is true because it is God’s Word because it says it is true. This may be considered circular, but where does the basis of logic come from that has defined circular arguments specifically?
41 comments
Man, Pharyngula has been absolutely swamped with trolls, recently. If this keeps up, it'll go the way of RationalWiki 1.0. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy. This is obvious for the simple reason that such a statement proves nothing. By definition, a circular argument cannot be defended with anything that is not a circular argument, so if one assumes that it is completely wrong, logic works just fine (or even better, in some cases).
the Bible is true because it is God’s Word because it says it is true. This may be considered circular
No, it is circular.
where does the basis of logic come from that has defined circular arguments specifically?
Human convention. But ok, let me guess, you're going to say "it comes from God", right? And you're going to say that your statement is therefore confirmed. Yes?
So, let's change the prerequisite and see if the argument remains standing. Ready?
"We say God doesn't exist."
Now repeat your argument, starting with "we say therefore ...".
Oops. Fail.
We can of course just make up a new theorem which says "circular logic is valid." We can also base our math on "x = -x". Why not? Splurge.
> where does the basis of logic come from that has defined circular arguments specifically?
In other words: "Circular arguments are awesome! Who made them? God did! Yayyyyy!"
I get it. If all else fails, pretend that logic failures are actually sound logic.
We say that Allah (swt) is the beginning of knowledge. Without Him, we cannot know anything. We say therefore that the Qur'an is true because it is Allah (swt)'s Word because it says it is true. This may be considered circular, but where does the basis of logic come from that has defined circular arguments specifically?
"This may be considered circular, but where does the basis of logic come from that has defined circular arguments specifically?"
So that is your best answer to those who reject your circular reasoning as fallacious. More circular reasoning. When all you have is a hammer...
@Berry Caluroso : this is still circular reasoning. The Bible is the Word of God because it says it is, and the Bible is true because it is the Word of God. Even if you suppose God's existence to be self-evident, you still need circular logic to "prove" that this particular book is His infallible, inerrant and unadulterated Word.
The basis of logic is in reason, which, mind you, was *not* God-given. We were not reasoning beings until after the Original Sin -- after Eve ate the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. We were little more than animals until that sin was committed.
If anything, one could say that we were given reason by the Serpent.
Reason/logic = devil-worship, then? Welp, that's God's problem, not mine.
{We say that ... We say... }
Well there's your biggest problem right there.
{where does the basis of logic come from that has defined circular arguments specifically? }
From philosophers far smarter than your petty "God" or its followers. To be specific, the concept of the circular reasoning fallacy was first coined by Aristotle .
But God doesn't exist, therefore the bible is false. And we know God doesn't exist because it says he does in the bible, and we've just proved the bible is false.
Circular logic is wrong because its premises depend on the very conclusions drawn from those premises. This means you can start with any premise and "prove" it by putting it in a circular argument.
If you really believe circular logic is valid, KST, then my argument is no less so than yours. If you reject my argument, then you have undermined your own.
"We say therefore that the Bible is true because it is God’s Word because it says it is true."
So your argument is:
P1: Everything the Bible says is true.
"This may be considered circular"
Because it is.
" but where does the basis of logic come from that has defined circular arguments specifically?"
So, it may be fallacy but God made logic so you're right anyway?
Kids, this is your mind on fundamentalism.
#1348085
We need to go deeper.
"the same way one might assert that one plus one equals two"
No, it's like asserting one plus one equals fish.
Circular arguments cannot be considered logic.
As for where they come from: they're pulled from the same place as your "God", delve too deeply and your head is stuck in your rectum.
God is the beginning of knowledge? I seem to recall that God wanted Adam and Eve to stay ignorant and kicked them out of the Garden of Eden when they gained knowledge through the original sin. If it were up to God, we'd all be morons. Not that some fundies aren't actively trying to go back to that original state, mind you...
"where does the basis of logic come from that has defined circular arguments specifically?"
From non-circular atheist logic. Without atheism, there is no basis for logic.
For the sake of discussion, let me grant your premise that God created logic. The very same logic that says you are wrong to argue in this fashion.
where does the basis of logic come from that has defined circular arguments specifically?
A circular argument isn't an argument at all; it's merely a restatement of the original question in different words. If I say "2+2=4 because 4=2+2", all I've done is restated 2+2=4 in a different form.
"We say that God is the beginning of knowledge. Without Him, we cannot know anything. We say therefore that the Bible is true because it is God’s Word because it says it is true. This may be considered circular, but where does the basis of logic come from that has defined circular arguments specifically?"
'Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.'
-Albert Einstein
You are also hearing "Spinning Around" by Kylie Minogue.
[spoiler]Manually.[/spoiler] Also:
image
...desu~ :3
@Osiris
"It's called begging the question."
And KST's question doesn't even have the pot to piss in, never mind put begged money in. To borrow from the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition:
'Faith' and the sack is worth the sack.
Which was what KST's sanity was given years ago, when religion made an aggressive takeover of his brain. My, how it's prospered since then...!
So, If I write something down, and say in the text that it's the literal word of God, you're going to believe it? Because that's what those ancient men did.
“We say that God is the beginning of knowledge.”
“Without Him, we cannot know anything.”
“We say therefore that the Bible is true because it is God’s Word because it says it is true.”
"This may be considered circular, but where does the basis of logic come from that has defined circular arguments specifically?”
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
