Circular Reasoning - Page 1

Do Christians use circular reasoning when they presuppose that God exists? Is circular reasoning a logical fallacy? Darius and Karin Viet explain.

Your basic presupposition—God exists and has revealed Himself in His inerrant, authoritative Word—is the ultimate standard.

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.

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!

http://answersingenesis.org/apologetics/circular-reasoning/

Beautiful, thanks Shtal, you give me a great stage for this...

 

Here’s why: I added vk4 name to make easy for him :)

Reasoning involves using the laws of logic. These include the law of non-contradiction which says that you can’t have A and not-A at the same time and in the same relationship. For example, the statement “My car is in the parking lot, and it is not the case that my car is in the parking lot” is necessarily false by the law of non-contradiction. Any rational person would accept this law. But why is this law true? Why should there be a law of non-contradiction, or for that matter, any laws of reasoning? The Christian can answer this question. For the Christian there is an absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern our thoughts after God’s. The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks. The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person’s opinion of how we ought to think, rather it stems from God’s self-consistent nature. God cannot deny Himself ( 2 Timothy 2:13), and so, the way God upholds the universe will necessarily be non-contradictory.

Laws of logic are God’s standard for thinking. Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, the laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariant entities. In other words, they are not made of matter—they apply everywhere and at all times. Laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature. And they are necessary for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God.

The materialistic atheist can’t have laws of logic. He believes that everything that exists is material—part of the physical world. But laws of logic are not physical. You can’t stub your toe on a law of logic. Laws of logic cannot exist in the atheist’s world, yet he uses them to try to reason. This is inconsistent. He is borrowing from the Christian worldview to argue against the Christian worldview. The atheist’s view cannot be rational because he uses things (laws of logic) that cannot exist according to his profession.

The debate over the existence of God is a bit like a debate over the existence of air.3 Can you imagine someone arguing that air doesn’t actually exist? He would offer seemingly excellent “proofs” against the existence of air, while simultaneously breathing air and expecting that we can hear his words as the sound is transmitted through the air. In order for us to hear and understand his claim, it would have to be wrong. Likewise, the atheist, in arguing that God does not exist must use laws of logic that only make sense if God does exist. In order for his argument to make sense, it would have to be wrong.

How can the atheist/VK4 respond?

The atheist/VK4 might say, “Well, I can reason just fine, and I don’t believe in God.” But this is no different than the critic of air saying, “Well, I can breathe just fine, and I don’t believe in air.” This isn’t a rational response. Breathing requires air, not a profession of belief in air. Likewise, logical reasoning requires God, not a profession of belief in Him. Of course the atheist/VK4 can reason; it’s because God has made his mind and given him access to the laws of logic—and that’s the point. It’s because God exists that reasoning is possible. The atheist/VK4 can reason, but within his own worldview he cannot account for his ability to reason.

The atheist/VK4 might respond, “Laws of logic are conventions made up by man.” But conventions are (by definition) conventional. That is, we all agree to them and so they work—like driving on the right side of the road. But if laws of logic were conventional, then different cultures could adopt different laws of logic (like driving on the left side of the road). So, in some cultures it might be perfectly fine to contradict yourself. In some societies truth could be self-contradictory. Clearly that wouldn’t do. If laws of logic are just conventions, then they are not universal laws. Rational debate would be impossible if laws of logic were conventional, because the two opponents could simply pick different standards for reasoning. Each would be right according to his own arbitrary standard.

The atheist/VK4 might respond, “Laws of logic are material—they are made of electro-chemical connections in the brain.” But then the laws of logic are not universal; they would not extend beyond the brain. In other words, we couldn’t argue that contradictions cannot occur on Mars, since no one’s brain is on Mars. In fact, if the laws of logic are just electro-chemical connections in the brain, then they would differ somewhat from person to person because everyone has different connections in their brain.

Sometimes an atheist/VK4 will attempt to answer with a more pragmatic response: “We use the laws of logic because they work.” Unfortunately for him, that isn’t the question. We all agree the laws of logic work; they work because they’re true. The question is why do they exist in the first place? How can the atheist account for absolute standards of reasoning like the laws of logic? How can non-material things like laws exist if the universe is material only?

As a last resort, the atheist/VK4 may give up a strictly materialistic view and agree that there are immaterial, universal laws. This is a huge concession; after all, if a person is willing to concede that immaterial, universal, unchanging entities can exist, then he must consider the possibility that God exists. But this concession does not save the atheist’s position. He must still justify the laws of logic. Why do they exist? And what is the point of contact between the material physical world and the immaterial world of logic? In other words, why does the material universe feel compelled to obey immaterial laws? The atheist cannot answer these questions. His worldview cannot be justified; it is arbitrary and thus irrational.

Conclusions

Clearly, atheism is not a rational worldview. It is self-refuting because the atheist/VK4 must first assume the opposite of what he is trying to prove in order to be able to prove anything. As Dr. Cornelius VanTil put it, “[A]theism presupposes theism.” Laws of logic require the existence of God—and not just any god, but the Christian God. Only the God of the Bible can be the foundation for knowledge (Proverbs 1:7; Colossians 2:3). Since the God of Scripture is immaterial, sovereign, and beyond time, it makes sense to have laws of logic that are immaterial, universal, and unchanging. Since God has revealed Himself to man, we are able to know and use logic. Since God made the universe and since God made our minds, it makes sense that our minds would have an ability to study and understand the universe. But if the brain is simply the result of mindless evolutionary processes that conveyed some sort of survival value in the past, why should we trust its conclusions? If the universe and our minds are simply the results of time and chance, as the atheist/VK4 contends, why would we expect that the mind could make sense of the universe? How could science and technology be possible?

Rational thinking, science, and technology make sense in a Christian worldview. The Christian has a basis for these things; the atheist does not. This is not to say that atheists/VK4 cannot be rational about some things. They can because they too are made in God’s image and have access to God’s laws of logic. But they have no rational basis for rationality within their own worldview. Likewise, atheists/VK4 can be moral, but they have no basis for that morality according to what they claim to believe. An atheist/VK4 is a walking bundle of contradictions. He reasons and does science, yet he denies the very God that makes reasoning and science possible. On the other hand, the Christian worldview is consistent and makes sense of human reasoning and experience.

http://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/atheism-an-irrational-worldview/

Lmao!

Only thing more pathetic than circular reasoning is mastrurbation reasoning like shtal just did ie; having an argument with someone else with yourself.

In my country shtal would be called a WANKER.

That's it vk4? no rational counter argument from you? Vk4, you are unintelligent ape and you say you have scientific evidence that proves you are unintelligent ape. Well I am not going to argue with your science.


"Interpretation"

vk4 asked his father, "How were people born?" So his father said, "Adam and Eve made babies, then their babies became adults and made babies, and so on."vk4 then went to his mother, asked her the same question and she told him, "We were monkeys then we evolved to become like we are now." The vk4 ran back to his father and said, "You lied to me!" His father replied, "No, your mom was talking about her side of the family."

"Your basic presupposition - God exists and has revealed

Himself in His inerrant, authoritative Word - is the ultimate

standard."

Shtal, that may well be the point at which christians begin

their circular reasoning, but it does not apply to atheistic

thought.  As I am sure I've made clear before, because we

are not STARTING on the same page - AND YOU CANNOT

CHANGE THAT - we cannot be accused, as atheists, of not

following christian 'reasoning'.

This is why your subsequent post addressing what you see

as VK4's (or "the atheist's" ) 'failings' does not hold water.

 

BTW I am also very sure that if he could be bothered to say so,

VK does 'believe' that air exists, he has after all been educated

in Physics, I understand.

Shtal;

Repeats the same threads
Copies and paste 3 year old posts
Masturbation argues with himself by making up an imaginary opponnent.
Now he is repeating the same jokes.

The poor guy is descending further into insanity.

This proves god is not real. If god existed he would give shtal evidence not bullshit.

vk4 wrote: This proves god is not real. If god existed he would give shtal evidence

 

Bible says: And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

 

Today’s big question: why can God logically claim in Scripture that Scripture is God's Word

When the Thessalonians received the Word of God, they recognized it as the actual Word of God and not as the word of men. In the gospels, Jesus constantly recognized Scripture as God’s Word (e.g., Luke 22:37). We can see many other examples of God claiming through Scripture that it is indeed the Word of God.

We can call Scripture the “Word of God” because “all Scripture is breathed out by God” (2 Timothy 3:16)—He gave us His Word, literally “breathed out” through men. In other words, when the truth is revealed to us from Scripture, it is from God.

Think of it this way: when someone tells me they had a dream, and I ask them for proof, is it logical for them to respond, “Because I said so”? That would be circular reasoning (i.e., begging the question fallacy—using oneself to prove oneself), right?

Why then does God use this same method for proving that Scripture is, in fact, His Word? This is not a logical fallacy, and the reason is simple: the person who had the dream is the authority on the subject of his own dream—not some other arbitrarily chosen person (then it would be a viscous circular argument, which is a fallacy).

With regard to Scripture, only God can verify His Word, because He is the ultimate authority and supreme Creator of everything (John 19:11; Colossians 1:15–20)—there is no higher authority. Many times, when fallible people attempt to verify their own claims, it is illogical because they are not a valid authority on the subject, which is why we must go to other sources to verify one’s claim. In confirming whether Scripture is the Word of God or not, whose word would you rather trust: man’s word—which is constantly changing—or God’s Word, which never changes?

Recognizing God’s valid, logical claim helps us to trust His Word and be able to give a defense for the faith that is in us, as 1 Peter 3:15 commands. The next time someone asks you how you know Scripture is God’s Word, tell them it is because He said so and let them know why we can trust Him! If God did not reveal Scripture, then it would be merely words of men, and thus untrustworthy. But thankfully, as 1 Thessalonians 2:13 states, it really is the Word of God!

Today’s big idea: we can trust God’s claim that Scripture is, in fact, His Word.

What to pray: thank God that Scripture is God’s Word and not just words of men.

http://answersingenesis.org/answers/biblical-authority-devotional/god-claim-in-scripture-that-scripture-is-gods-word/

shtal,, I can't read all of that! Geesh,,, what's the point?;  just cut to the quick huh; so we can debate a topic without dedicating 45 minutes to reading a mile long post to figure it out. 

Word= words; less is more