| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | '''Circular reasoning''' is a form of [[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|proof by assertion]], often used by [[Atheist|Atheists]] in which one uses a conclusion of an argument as a [[premise]] to that same argument, that is, ending where it began. This is also known as ''petitio principii'' or ''begging the question.'' | + | '''Circular reasoning''' is a form of [[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|proof by assertion]], often used by [[Atheist|Atheists]] and [[evolutionist]]s in which one uses a conclusion of an argument as a [[premise]] to that same argument, that is, ending where it began. This is also known as ''petitio principii'' or ''begging the question.'' |
| | | | |
| | It is considered invalid and therefore is not permitted by the rules of [[formal logic]]. | | It is considered invalid and therefore is not permitted by the rules of [[formal logic]]. |
| Line 42: |
Line 42: |
| | Every logical system ''must'' begin with a set of generally accepted assumptions called ''postulates'' or ''axioms'' (from the [[Greek]] '''αξιος''' or ''axios'' worthy or deserving). Similarly, any set of definitions must start with a set of fundamental terms that need no definition. An axiom is usually a fundamental property of nature upon which all agree. Persons attempting to show that something is a fundamental property of nature when it is not, or a value of that property that is contrary to fact, typically use circular reasoning to make such an attempt. | | Every logical system ''must'' begin with a set of generally accepted assumptions called ''postulates'' or ''axioms'' (from the [[Greek]] '''αξιος''' or ''axios'' worthy or deserving). Similarly, any set of definitions must start with a set of fundamental terms that need no definition. An axiom is usually a fundamental property of nature upon which all agree. Persons attempting to show that something is a fundamental property of nature when it is not, or a value of that property that is contrary to fact, typically use circular reasoning to make such an attempt. |
| | ==Examples== | | ==Examples== |
| − | Atheists use circular logic to "disprove" the existence of [[God]]. That is, they presuppose that God does not exist and then argue that all proofs for the existence of God must be flawed because He does not exist. | + | *Atheists use circular logic to "disprove" the existence of [[God]]. That is, they presuppose that God does not exist and then argue that all proofs for the existence of God must be flawed because He does not exist. |
| | | | |
| − | [[Muslim]]s also use circular logic to defend the [[Qur'an]]. They argue that the Qur'an is true because it is the Word of [[Allah]], that it is the Word of Allah because it says so, and that we can rely on it because it is true. | + | *[[Muslim]]s also use circular logic to defend the [[Qur'an]]. They argue that the Qur'an is true because it is the Word of [[Allah]], that it is the Word of Allah because it says so, and that we can rely on it because it is true. |
| | + | |
| | + | *[[Evolutionist]]s will claim that a fossil is millions of years old because that is the date given by [[carbon dating]]; then state that carbon dating is reliable because they "know" that the fossil is millions of years old due to the [[strata]] in which it was found. |
| | == Reference == | | == Reference == |
| | | | |