YAY! Circular reasoning is allowed!

johnson1010 · Fri May 27, 2011 4:52 pm

This is good...

Someone having difficulty defending their bald faced assertions of god's existence went to answersingenesis.org for help. Good luck with that, kid.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -reasoning


	Quote: Hi AiG, My question is regarding presuppositional apologetics. I’ve read the article at this link http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... pologetics and I whole heartedly agree with what it teaches. I know that I’m not a strong debater and so I need to anchor myself to God’s word to have a hope at defending our faith. However, in a recent discussion with a non-Christian, where I was using presuppositional apologetics, I was accused of using circular reasoning to argue my case. He claims that it is invalid to assume God exists to argue that God exists. On the surface, this seems to make sense. But I still firmly believe that it’s valid to presuppose that God exists. How should I respond to his claims that my arguments are invalid due to circular reasoning? Btw: Thank you. Your ministry has greatly encouraged and strengthened my faith. God bless you. V. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- V., We agree that presuppositional apologetics is the ultimate biblical approach to apologetics. The common accusation that the presuppositionalist uses circular reasoning is actually true. In fact, everyone uses some degree of circular reasoning when defending his ultimate standard (though not everyone realizes this fact). Yet if used properly, this use of circular reasoning is not arbitrary and, therefore, not fallacious. Contrary to what your non-Christian friend said, circular reasoning is surprisingly a valid argument. The conclusion does follow from the premises. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy only when it is arbitrary, proving nothing beyond what it assumes. However, not all circular reasoning is fallacious. Certain standards must be assumed. Dr. Jason Lisle gave this example of a non-arbitrary use of circular reasoning: 1.Without laws of logic, we could not make an argument. 2.We can make an argument. 3.Therefore, there must be laws of logic.1 While this argument is circular, it is a non-fallacious use of circular reasoning. Since we couldn’t prove anything apart from the laws of logic, we must presuppose the laws of logic even to prove they exist. In fact, if someone were trying to disprove that laws of logic exist, he’d have to use the laws of logic in his attempt, thereby refuting himself. Your non-Christian friend must agree there are certain standards that can be proven with circular reasoning. Your basic presupposition—God exists and has revealed Himself in His inerrant, authoritative Word—is the ultimate standard. Presupposing God exists to argue that God exists is a reasonable circular argument because without the God of the Bible, we have no basis for assuming the laws of logic and their properties, let alone absolute morality or the uniformity of nature.

HAHA!!

YES!


	Quote: We’ve already established how the laws of logic must exist or else we wouldn’t have reason to debate. But a natural universe consisting of strictly matter in motion would not contain abstract laws of logic, and proving anything would be impossible.2 These laws do obviously exist because the biblical God exists, and the laws of logic stem from His nature—He is unchanging, universal, and immaterial.3 Also, absolute moral standards are dependent on the holy, sinless God of the Bible. He promises to judge those who violate His laws—each of us—by casting sinful unbelievers into the lake of fire or freeing sinful believers by His own Son’s blood on the Cross (2 Thessalonians 1:8–9; Ephesians 1:7). If the evolutionary worldview were true, we would be advanced animals acting on chemical impulses. Absolute moral standards would not exist. Science itself requires the biblical God. Without the uniformity of nature, which can only be explained by God consistently upholding the universe, science would be a guessing game. In a random chance universe, we’d have no reason to expect the constancy of physical laws God has ordained, such as the law of gravity. The links within this article give more detailed information about how to show your non-Christian friend that in order to make an argument, practice science, or expect absolute morality, he has to assume the biblical God exists. Basically, you are proving your presupposition by demonstrating the impossibility of God not existing. No wonder Scripture calls a person a fool who says, “There is no God” (Psalm 14:1). Knowledge and wisdom depend on the existence of the biblical God (Proverbs 1:7; Colossians 2:3). As you humbly share, recognize this is an issue of the heart. We all inherently know the Creator, but many suppress that truth in unrighteousness, and their thinking becomes futile (Romans 1:18–22). Warn of the justice of God in punishing sin (Romans 6:23). Then share the grace of God in sending His Son to take that punishment for those who turn to the Lord Jesus in repentance and faith. God bless your faithful witness!

OH MAN!

SO much good stuff in there.

Robert Tulip · Fri May 27, 2011 9:36 pm

Thanks Johnson, very entertaining.

A presupposition is an axiom upon which a system of consistent logic can be built. If the axiom is open to doubt, then everything built upon it is equally doubtful. Conventionally, Euclid's axiom that parallel lines do not meet at infinity was used to justify the belief that Newtonian mechanics provided an accurate description of the motion of the universe. However, with Einstein's discovery that light bends in a gravitational field, the connection between Euclidean geometry and physics came into doubt.

Similarly with faith, using a supernatural god as an axiom enables construction of an edifice of belief. However, seeing that this edifice does not match to reality casts the truth of the axiom into doubt.

But all that still does not invalidate the need for circular reasoning. For example, science rests on the beliefs that observation and evidence are reliable, and that the universe exists as a physical reality. There remains a logical circularity between these beliefs and scientific knowledge. To date there is nothing that conflicts with this system, so these scientific axioms appear to be reliable. They stand in stark opposition though to all supernatural claims, for which there is zero evidence.

Chris OConnor · Fri May 27, 2011 9:49 pm

We do have to assume a few things if we're going to make any sense of the world. How can we ever really prove that reality is real, that evidence is important and valuable and reliable, and that the universe exists as an element of objective reality? I get exhausted hearing people (philosophers) question literally everything.

stahrwe · Sat May 28, 2011 9:09 am

Not only do I find myself agreeing with much* of Robert's post, I think he stated it well. Thank you Robert

* though not all

As for the premise of the thread, I wasn't going to comment unless it attracted any attention, it is either accidentally or deliberately deceptive as the whole idea of presuppositional apologetics is to assume God and see what comes out. It is a bit like a zoololgist assuming a new animal species, then asking questions like; what habitat would it need, what would it eat, etc.

johnson1010 · Sat May 28, 2011 10:03 am


	Quote: Chris: I get exhausted hearing people (philosophers) question literally everything.

I'm definitely with you on that one, Chris.


	Quote: RT: But all that still does not invalidate the need for circular reasoning. For example, science rests on the beliefs that observation and evidence are reliable, and that the universe exists as a physical reality. There remains a logical circularity between these beliefs and scientific knowledge. To date there is nothing that conflicts with this system, so these scientific axioms appear to be reliable. They stand in stark opposition though to all supernatural claims, for which there is zero evidence.

I do not accept that circular reasoning is the proof of empirical veracity.

I think there is a difference here. We don't have to assume observation and empirical evidence is trustworthy, because we see that they actually are. Real world results are easy to obtain and we don't need to trust that things fall down when dropped, they do it all the time. We can have confidence that things will fall when dropped. (yes, yes, phylosophical nit-pickers. in controlled environments similar to all previous examples of the same where things have prviously fallen when dropped)

We stop having to assume when we have reached some critical mass of experience which shows that those things are true.

Questioning whether the world really exists and falling down that ultimate skeptical path and claiming that nothing exists is just as insubstantial as claiming something DOES exist when there's nothing to indicate that it does.

In both cases, it requires a claim of something for which there is no proof, and indeed all of recorded history, and the scope of everything we know about anything tells us that isn't the case.

that ultimate skeptical position is no more worthy of consideration than any other invention of the imagination for which there is no evidence to support. It's that old saw that invisible unicorns on neptune might be real, and there is no way for us to disprove them, but anything and everything that someone imagines is just as inproveable, or impervious to disproof, and so all the flights of imagination in the world are just as valid by that standard.

What we do know, and can prove, is that empirical observation gives us results. Predictable, repeatable results which are the foundations of all our technologies, agriculture, medicine, and infrastructures.

There is no more reason to doubt that these things really exist than there is to believe in a thing which evidently does not exist.

It is true that our perception of the world is a model that reflects what is there, and not EXACTLY what is there. For instance, colors are a coding in our brain that reflects electromagnetic spectrum. Distance is correlated to percieved size in our vision as well, though we know for certain things are not smaller simply because they are far away.

I would not argue that things are exactly as we percieve, but i would argue that as flawed as our perceptions can be proven to be, they are an accurate representation of what lies beyond our mind. Cars are not really smaller because they are more distant, but we CAN reliably use that perception of size to evade being struck by an oncoming car.

In short, anything we know about anything is based on the veracity of empirical observation. It is a far greater suspese of disbelief to claim that absolutely everything which has been proven reliable through the course of sentience is NOT reliable, based on the imaginitive inventions of a few philosophers.

Interbane · Sat May 28, 2011 12:02 pm


	Quote: I think there is a difference here. We don't have to assume observation and empirical evidence is trustworthy, because we see that they actually are.

I agree with Johnson. The only reason to appeal to a circular argument is to attempt to find a way to achieve absolute certainty. Induction suffices, even if it requires a bit of faith at first. It's not absolute, but it has produced enough results to be confident it works, and that's enough to build a worldview on. Once you start looking for absolutes, you open up cans of worms all over the place.

Robert Tulip · Sat May 28, 2011 4:41 pm


	johnson1010 wrote: We don't have to assume observation and empirical evidence is trustworthy, because we see that they actually are.

This gets to the nub of the status and nature of philosophy. If you 'see that something is trustworthy', you rely on it for all claims that are based on it. This is precisely the function of axioms in geometry. Euclid's axioms were statements that were so obvious that they could not be proved by any simpler statements.

The philosophical issue here is at the basis of the cultural clash between the Anglo-American analytical tradition, which relies on induction from observation, and the European Continental existential tradition, which builds deductive systems of logic from axioms. The cultural difference is that existential philosophy claims certainty, while analytical philosophy allows some level of radical uncertainty at its foundation.

The deductive challenge to the inductive method is precisely the point raised by Interbane, "The only reason to appeal to a circular argument is to attempt to find a way to achieve absolute certainty. Induction suffices, even if it requires a bit of faith at first." The implication is that science is uncertain of its claims, and that this does not matter.

To prove that the circular reasoning of supernaturalism is definitely wrong requires equal certainty in the rebuttal. This requires an attack on the trustworthiness of supernatural premises. We see the conclusions are ridiculous, given the unreliability of the Bible, and trace back from that observation to also see that the premises for the logical edifice of theology are baseless. We can then expand this observation into a psychological study of the function of absolute belief as wish fulfillment.

If you assume there is a supernatural God, then it is logically possible for this God to intervene on earth through miracles, promise of heavenly salvation after death, etc. There is no evidence for any such intervention, so the premise is untrustworthy.

It is not really enough to say that the religious deductive method is flawed because it conflicts with inductive evidence. Induction provides no certainty. The better line of attack is to accept that circular reasoning is necessary, and that science rests on a system of deductive logic. Science does in fact use obvious assumptions to build a system of logic, with what Interbane called "a bit of faith at first." But analytical philosophy prefers to conceal and ignore this need for logical foundations because the deductive method is tainted by the error of past false systems.

I think this leads into real questions about ethics. While scientific philosophers say there is no certainty, only induction, they hold to a sort of purist ethical logic that accepts that all our claims of knowledge of reality could be proven wrong. But that is ridiculous. If, by contrast, we use the reliability of consistent observation as an axiom, something that does not require proof because it is too obvious and simple, then we have grounds to say that people who reject this assumption (ie fundamentalist Christians) are absolutely wrong. This deductive scientific method then becomes a foundation for an ethical stance, one that builds values based on facts.

Forum rules

YAY! Circular reasoning is allowed! Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!