English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-02-15 06:57:16 · 11 answers · asked by Yahoo! 5 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

11 answers

In a logical argument you state a number of premises to reach a conclusion:

1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a Man
3. Therefore Socrates is mortal

The 2 arguments establish the conclusion because you cannot consistently believe 1, 2 and "Socrates is NOT mortal". So IF YOU ESTABLISH YOUR PREMISES (1 and 2) you establish your conclusion.

"Circular" reasoning has the conclusion itself as one of the premises. So you cannot establish the conclusion:

1. The Bible says it is the word of God
2. The Bible says that God always tells the truth
3. So everything the Bible says is true.

1 and 2 may establish 3 but we can't establish 1 and 2 without establising 3, which means we have to establish 1 and 2, which means we have to establish 3..............

Of course IF the conclusion is true we can believe the premise. So IF the Bible is true then the Bible is true. But we knew that already:

IF Harry Potter is true Harry Potter is true
IF that advert is true that advert is true
IF p then p!

Now figurative speaking can, only with interpretation be pronounced "true" or "false". We could accept the honesty of the source but still have many different interpretations. These can't all be true! There are many different interpretations of the Bible - any statement about its truth in any particular case includes a (usually unvoiced) claim about the correctness of that persons interpretation (which they usually claim is "literal")

When talking about the literal Truth of the Bible people often use the False Dichotomy aswell. The propositon they are trying to uphold is "Everything the Bible says is true". Now with a lot of propositions some can be true while others are false. So they drop the "everything" in an attempt to force you into a choice of accepting their interpretation of the Bible or rejecting the whole thing.

What they should be saying is that they believe God has said X.

What they end up trying to imply is:

"I have proof that if you don't agree with my interpretation of the Bible then you're calling God a liar."

Of course the same comments go for the Quran.

2007-02-15 07:11:57 · answer #1 · answered by anthonypaullloyd 5 · 2 0

Circular reasoning is a way of explaining something by using the thing itself. For example: "The Bible is true because the Bible says it is true." It just goes around and around in a circle.

2007-02-15 15:02:02 · answer #2 · answered by N 6 · 2 0

I'm sure by now you get the idea of circular logic. I'm surprised no one mentioned that it's also the most common form of communication between fundies and nonchristians. I've used it myself when confronted with a fundie trying to use it on me. Key here is to use the word 'prove' instead of 'says' when describing what your magical book of whatevers happens to have printed in it. Reference same book to prove it. I finish if off by saying 'We have more holy writings than you do, so we're more right.'

~Morg~

2007-02-15 15:15:12 · answer #3 · answered by morgorond 5 · 2 0

it is the idea that you will never reach a valid conclussion because it is presupposed..the conclusion may be invalid because of the logic used to reach it...example...i have a rock that keeps tigers away...you doubt that it works...my proof to you is that "you don't see any tigers around do you?"...it does not prove that the tigers are kept away by the rock...it could simply be the fact that there are very few tigers walking the streeets on nyc...

2007-02-15 15:04:43 · answer #4 · answered by techteach03 5 · 2 0

How do we know we can trust what the bible says?

Because it's God's word.

How do we know that?

Because the Bible says so.

How do we know we can trust what the bible says?

Because it's God's word.


That's circular logic. Round and round you go, and you never get an answer.

2007-02-15 15:01:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Gaila's random thoughts are interesting.
Along the same lines:
An argument and counter-argument that leads back to the original thought instead of a decent conclusion.

2007-02-15 15:02:51 · answer #6 · answered by Uncle Thesis 7 · 1 0

A something that defines itself by referencing itself

Often with a vague assumed truth at the beginning that no one questions but is not proven

2007-02-15 15:00:30 · answer #7 · answered by G's Random Thoughts 5 · 2 0

examples; debate teams, what came first the chicken or the egg?, correlation or coincidence and does anxiety cause stress or does stress cause anxiety? What is the smallest particle and what is the greatest? We may know unconsciously and we may never or it may be we know both. I chose to call it NEVER ENDING ETERNAL ENERGY OR LIFE FORCE.

2007-02-15 15:51:36 · answer #8 · answered by Beenthere4sure 3 · 1 0

can God make a rock so heavy he cant lift it
thats a good example ( and ggrr )
but it is something that just goes round and round in circles

proof of the bible .... the bible
there is another

2007-02-15 15:01:33 · answer #9 · answered by Peace 7 · 1 1

I need experience to get a job but I cant get experience without a job.

2007-02-15 15:04:28 · answer #10 · answered by travelguruette 6 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers