Circular Argument... Now What?

[maninorange]

I was having a discussion with a quasi-friend on Christianity, and, after much delay, we got to the point where he admitted that it was a circular argument (Bible -> God -> Bible).  I honestly wasn't expecting it to happen, but then again, he didn't say it in exactly that way.  It was more to the effect of, "How can I make the argument uncircular?  The only reason it has to be circular is because you put restrictions on evidence."

Now what?  I was completely unprepared for this response.

I will admit that personal evidence could be placed into a sort of evidence (kind of), but that is evidence only for the one who experienced it, not for any others that said person wishes to convince.  Could you conceive of another sort of evidence that would not fall into either the personal or empirical categories?

[Squid]

The problem with personal experience as evidence is that it is unverifiable and decidedly not measurable unless we have someone having a spiritual experience in an fMRI machine, maybe.  To my knowledge, any instance attempting to verify such personal experiences have come up empty handed on the supernatural side or were more pseudo-scientific than actual controlled experiments.

However, it they want to go down this road of "evidence" then you could simply show that many other non-supernatural explanations exist for spiritual experiences including things such as epilepsy and infrasound as well as some evidence alluding to some people's brains allowing them to experience certain events in a way that is interpreted as "supernatural" when it is simply a consequence of their neurophysiology.

A common argument is that evidence-based inquiries are too "restrictive" or are too "materialistically based" and so forth - refusing to accept thing such as personal experience or unverified "miracles".  And the more room you give the more they move into more and more abstract realms as you find yourself chasing them around with empirical evidence.  Eventually they find refuge in some vague corner and declare victory - such has been my experience any way but hopefully yours will be different.

[pinkocommie]

I was having a discussion with a quasi-friend on Christianity, and, after much delay, we got to the point where he admitted that it was a circular argument (Bible -> God -> Bible).  I honestly wasn't expecting it to happen, but then again, he didn't say it in exactly that way.  It was more to the effect of, "How can I make the argument uncircular?  The only reason it has to be circular is because you put restrictions on evidence."

Now what?  I was completely unprepared for this response.

I will admit that personal evidence could be placed into a sort of evidence (kind of), but that is evidence only for the one who experienced it, not for any others that said person wishes to convince.  Could you conceive of another sort of evidence that would not fall into either the personal or empirical categories?

Haha, I think your friend needs to step back and realize that once you have to ask the person you're arguing with to help out with your side of the argument, the argument is over.  The way I see it, there isn't any other form of evidence.  Personal experience can be evidence for the individual only, which is why personally I am not an anti-theist, just anti-anyone trying to dictate my behavior because they had some personal experience that was enough to prove to them that religion is valid/god is real/whatever.  But as far as being evidence to others, personal experience is (or at least should be) pretty worthless, which leaves us with empirical evidence.  

As far as I know, the circular logic of the Bible -> God -> Bible can't be made un-circular.  If it could, I think Christian apologists would be high fiveing themselves with excitement about not having to deal with that oldie but goldie and particularly poignant bit of criticism regarding the validity of the Christian god anymore.  

Your friend needs to either adequately explain why the restrictions put on the evidence are unreasonable/unfair/wrong.etc., or they need to accept that their position is based on circular logic/evidence which is only pertinent to them.  If those pesky restrictions she/he is complaining about are sound, then he/she is the one with the problem.

[Gawen]

What pinko said. Now that he's figured it out, you can steer him to another fallacy.

[freeservant]

I think this link gives a good answer.

http://creation.com/not-circular-reasoning

Also you have to consider natural selection as a circular argument that causes the emergence of complexity by natural selection.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encycloped ... nsel06.htm

some circular arguments can not be escaped from...

Nature selected and produced each species. The proof is that it did it. How do we know it did it? Because it did it.

"Thus we have a question: `Why do some multiply while others remain suitable, dwindle, or die out?' to which is offered an answer: `Because some multiply while others remain stable, dwindle, or die out.

[pinkocommie]

 Natural selection isn't an argument, it's a process.  Attempting to learn science from religious apologist sites = bad idea.

[freeservant]

:twak:  Natural selection isn't an argument, it's a process.  Attempting to learn science from religious apologist sites = bad idea.

I understand your prejudice will cause you to turn away from information that may never the less be true.

Natural selection is a process that uses the term natural selection to explain said process so regardless of it's truth position it does come back to a circular reasoning as the process works because that is how the process works.

Some circular reasoning can not be avoided.

I happen to believe that natural selection works quite well given the limitations of that process.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/074329 ... 0743296206

I also acknowledge that you are prejudice to such scientific inquiry for obvious reasons.

[TheJackel]

I think this link gives a good answer.

http://creation.com/not-circular-reasoning

Also you have to consider natural selection as a circular argument that causes the emergence of complexity by natural selection.

Problem with your argument here is that natural selection is as said above "a process", and has long since been verified right down to the molecular level. This argument is hardly even close to circular.. What makes religion circular in nature is that none of it's fallacious claims can be verifiable, or ever rendered unarguable. The Bible fails at evidence because it fails to establish any sort of validity worth taking into consideration. Thus I can point to natural selection and verify it with everyone here while theists will be stuck in a circular day dream of trying futilely to point out a magical sky fairy..

Natural Selection:

[youtube:35h1msv7]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoeIIZFApF4[/youtube:35h1msv7]

[youtube:35h1msv7]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIGXLNYV9kc[/youtube:35h1msv7]


Evidence for GOD:

???????

"Thus we have a question: `Why do some multiply while others remain suitable, dwindle, or die out?' to which is offered an answer: `Because some multiply while others remain stable, dwindle, or die out.

This could be caused by an infinite number of reasons, and these reasons could be a failure to adapt, climate change, bad weather, foreign aggressive species, habitat loss, Geological activity, behaviorally inept, overly successful, mutation, disease, hunted to extinction, fire, and a million other natural reasons.. Natural selection does not just equate to being a process of success.. Things die off, or fail to survive because they can, and there is nothing magical about it. This can also be equally said for species that do adapt and survive. A selection does not require intelligence to be a selection, process, or a fork in the road to where something either adapts or doesn't adapt.

And I would say that you seemingly failed to grasp what emergence is, or what order from chaos really is, and why it's the very foundation of our very existence. If you like, I can post a ton of videos on emergence, order from chaos, ect... Or I can give you a run down on the subject myself..

[Thumpalumpacus]

:twak:  Natural selection isn't an argument, it's a process.  Attempting to learn science from religious apologist sites = bad idea.

I understand your prejudice will cause you to turn away from information that may never the less be true.

Natural selection is a process that uses the term natural selection to explain said process so regardless of it's truth position it does come back to a circular reasoning as the process works because that is how the process works.

Some circular reasoning can not be avoided.

I happen to believe that natural selection works quite well given the limitations of that process.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/074329 ... 0743296206

I also acknowledge that you are prejudice to such scientific inquiry for obvious reasons.

Slow cheetahs starve.

[freeservant]

Problem with your argument here is that natural selection is as said above "a process", and has long since been verified right down to the molecular level.

No.. Not really as this book: "THE EDGE OF EVOLUTION: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism" points out quite well.  But lets be honest and say we could fill up a site the length of talk-origins and trueorigins websites together with the back and forth.

This argument is hardly even close to circular..

Not saying that natural selection is not true... Just saying that it is by necessarily a circular argument about the process or hypothesis.


 

What makes religion circular in nature is that none of it's fallacious claims can be verifiable, or ever rendered unarguable. The Bible fails at evidence because it fails to establish any sort of validity worth taking into consideration. Thus I can point to natural selection and verify it with everyone here while theists will be stuck in a circular day dream of trying futilely to point out a magical sky fairy..

Oh... you are making a circular argument here but perhaps you don't see this and can some how back it all up.  Is it just a tautology that all claims are fallacious and unarguable or do you have a good non-circular reason to establish this?

Natural Selection:

youtube links...

I get that natural selection is established in an unquestionable macro-evolutionary sense.  I can even say that if the universe is fine tuned for life then evolution is part of that design.

Evidence for GOD:

???????

Natural Theology is about God and how the evidence for God is all around you regardless of your circular claim that it is all false.

http://www.godandscience.org/

"Thus we have a question: `Why do some multiply while others remain suitable, dwindle, or die out?' to which is offered an answer: `Because some multiply while others remain stable, dwindle, or die out.

This could be caused by an infinite number of reasons, and these reasons could be a failure to adapt, climate change, bad weather, foreign aggressive species, habitat loss, Geological activity, behaviorally inept, overly successful, mutation, disease, hunted to extinction, fire, and a million other natural reasons.. Natural selection does not just equate to being a process of success.. Things die off, or fail to survive because they can, and there is nothing magical about it. This can also be equally said for species that do adapt and survive. A selection does not require intelligence to be a selection, process, or a fork in the road to where something either adapts or doesn't adapt.

And I would say that you seemingly failed to grasp what emergence is, or what order from chaos really is, and why it's the very foundation of our very existence. If you like, I can post a ton of videos on emergence, order from chaos, ect... Or I can give you a run down on the subject myself..

Given the Teleological argument and the fine tuning of the Universe for life my worldview accommodates the reason for emergence quite well but I also understand the induction atheists are making when they use the word and how for the atheist it can take on a different meaning.

[pinkocommie]

:twak:  Natural selection isn't an argument, it's a process.  Attempting to learn science from religious apologist sites = bad idea.

I understand your prejudice will cause you to turn away from information that may never the less be true.

Natural selection is a process that uses the term natural selection to explain said process so regardless of it's truth position it does come back to a circular reasoning as the process works because that is how the process works.

Some circular reasoning can not be avoided.

I happen to believe that natural selection works quite well given the limitations of that process.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/074329 ... 0743296206

I also acknowledge that you are prejudice to such scientific inquiry for obvious reasons.

Wait, so because I suggest it's a bad idea to learn science from religious apologists, I'm prejudiced?  Is it also prejudiced not to accept medical advice from mechanics?  Or  legal advice from bakers?  Come on, now.

[Squid]

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/09nsel06.htm

some circular arguments can not be escaped from...

Nature selected and produced each species. The proof is that it did it. How do we know it did it? Because it did it.

"Thus we have a question: `Why do some multiply while others remain suitable, dwindle, or die out?' to which is offered an answer: `Because some multiply while others remain stable, dwindle, or die out.

That's a very elementary and silly version of natural selection, last time I checked pathlights wasn't a reliable source for research in evolutionary biology.

[SSY]

Nature selected and produced each species. The proof is that it did it. How do we know it did it? Because it did it.

That is epic. Stick around, if you ask nicely, someone might teach you something. Squid is chap with evidence coming out of his ass (in a good way), he would be a good person to try.

After reading some of those links, I can only say the person writing them is a cretin, a complete and utter moron. I normally try and refrain from such criticism, but it is plainly obvious, the person writing has no understanding of logic, or wilfully disregards it. That one about circular reasoning for instance, starts out by nearly getting the atheist objection right, then mentioning something tangentially related to the subject, then embarking on a journey into the barren wastes of reason, where nothing mentioned supports their position in any way. Honestly, you can't just spout a load of unsupported shitty assertions, expect people to agree with you about those, and then hope they forget what you were originally talking about. That's not the way thinking critically works.

They even finish by directly and unequivocally contradicting themselves, by attempting to use the Bible, to prove the Bible. It's almost more believable that it was set up as a delectable parody of creationists in order to undermine their position.

[freeservant]

Wait, so because I suggest it's a bad idea to learn science from religious apologists, I'm prejudiced?  Is it also prejudiced not to accept medical advice from mechanics?  Or  legal advice from bakers?  Come on, now.

Ahh I get it... You are saying that there is no such thing as a scientist who is a theist.  Or that you are prejudiced against anybody who can learn the wonderful information that science gathers and not apply it to a theist world view.  Or rather that only the atheist worldview apply's if one is to believe in science.



Look in order for us both to be intellectually honest we both must give each others clues and evidence a fair assessment and a fair and objective judgment or one of us has only contempt prior to investigation.

That's a very elementary and silly version of natural selection, last time I checked pathlights wasn't a reliable source for research in evolutionary biology.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules ... temid=2092

You bet! I can see that as the moderator for the specific topic in question you are motivated to say that and I see that SSY has the even greater what I call the Epic 4chan means of epic refutation of all epic internet memes by epic satire proving all things in an epic FAIL satirical way.

Is there not any site you can't reject off hand and with personal incredulity?

http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Main_Page

???


What about a peer reviewed journal:

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main

Is there no site that you can recognize as being credible?  And if not do you not see how this really acts against any site that you may use is not some how a blanket non-credible  source because of it's atheist agenda prejudging any content?

This would entail that your view is un-falsifiable because you by mental dent of will have an 'a-priori can't accept any effort to try and show the falsification' position.

Again is your side all just a tautology or is there any ground on which to have an intellectually honest debate.

Let me try it this way:

We have thus provided two answers to the tautology objection. The first is that its central premise, that there are no criteria of fitness independent of survival, is false. The second is that natural selection is not applied in practice in the simplistic way the phrase “Survival of the fittest,” suggests. Instead, scientists use selection based reasoning to develop specific, testable hypotheses about the organisms under investigation.

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/s ... tautology/

Now I have made the point that in its simple expression it can't help but be circular but that does not mean that it is not more complex and true under the limitations of micro-evolution.

[pinkocommie]

Your dedicated misrepresentation of my position leads me to believe that you're not really looking for a friendly conversation.  Have fun with that.