If one claims that 'using logic and reason to prove your logic and reason is actually logic and reason is circular reasoning and is no different than saying the bible proves the bible is circular reasoning' how can one respond definitively that this concept is a fallacy?
He has already been told by numerous people that he is basically making shit up to defend his position, but I can't seem to think of a definitive explanation as to why making such a claim is wrong, illogical or unreasonable.
Tried posting this same question on a blog on this site but I don't think it worked so thought I'd try it here.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
You are of course "Incorrect." You are not incorrect about the circular aspect of logic. Support for logic is in fact "circular." It is nothing like support for the bible. "LOGIC WORKS" Logic can lead us to reliable, consistent, provable and repeatable results. The Bible can not. Religion can not. Faith can not. At this point in time, all we have is logic to evaluate the world around us. We use it because it is the best possible tool we have for understanding the world around us. We use "LOGIC" because we do not want to return to the Godly state of ignorance or the Ages of Darkness from whence we came. If you think you have something that works better than "Logic" why not let us all in on the secret. Your comments do nothing to tarnish the reputation or usefulness of logic and your Bible can not hold a candle to its utility, circular or not. You have proved nothing.
"If one claims that 'using logic and reason to prove your logic and reason is actually logic and reason is circular reasoning and is no different than saying the bible proves the bible is circular reasoning' how can one respond definitively that this concept is a fallacy?
There is a fundamental difference, that whilst logic can be empirically evidenced to provide consistently reliable and accurate results in assessing the validity or truth of claims, the bible quite demonstrably can't, and contains axiomatic errors on a grand scale. You might also want to point out that some of the most prominent religious apologist like William Lane Craig try to use logic to argue for God's existence, why would they bother if logic amounted to no more than circular reasoning? They might just as well stick with the circular reasoning of faith that their religion has hidden behind for centuries.