http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/index.php?title=Circular_argument&feed=atom&action=history Circular argument - Revision history 2024-03-28T23:30:59Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.17.5 http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/index.php?title=Circular_argument&diff=9619&oldid=prev 67.170.86.255 at 01:14, 1 December 2010 2010-12-01T01:14:45Z <p></p> <p><b>New page</b></p><div>Also known as ''Begging the Question'', a circular argument is one that supposes the proposition (directly or indirectly) within a preceding premise. Or more explicitly, a circular argument makes a conclusion based on something that has already been presumed in the argument.<br /> <br /> ===Example===<br /> <br /> ''&quot;The study of physics is beneficial because good physics makes for useful analysis.&quot;''<br /> <br /> Here, we can see that the statement seems quite reasonable until we place it into a more explicit form:<br /> <br /> ''&quot;The study of physics is beneficial because physics makes for a beneficial study.&quot;''<br /> <br /> Where the argument is of the following form for assumption A,<br /> <br /> '''Premise (1):''' A implies B<br /> <br /> '''Premise (2):''' Suppose B<br /> <br /> '''Conclusion:''' Therefore A<br /> <br /> ===Examples that don't follow the circular argument fallacy===<br /> <br /> '''Person A:''' God doesn't exist.<br /> <br /> '''Person B:''' Here is some historical evidence for the miracles of Jesus.<br /> <br /> '''Person A:''' Miracles are impossible, therefore God doesn't exist.<br /> <br /> Here, this argument doesn't follow the particular &quot;A is B, thus A is B&quot; format. Instead, it appeals more to the &quot;Argument from Personal Incredulity&quot;, which attributes that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or absurd, the premise can be supposed to be untrue, or that another favoured but unproven premise is true instead.<br /> <br /> ===Kalam Cosmological argument===<br /> <br /> A noted example of circular argument is one known as &quot;Kalam Cosmological argument&quot;.<br /> <br /> Its structure is this:<br /> <br /> 1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause.<br /> <br /> 2. The universe began to exist.<br /> <br /> 3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.<br /> <br /> <br /> The refutation of the Kalam Cosmological argument is actually rather simple:<br /> <br /> The first premise &quot;begins to exist&quot; implies that things that do not begin to exist do not need a cause; they've always existed.<br /> <br /> So, the challenge becomes to name some things that do not conform to this qualification, things that have always existed.<br /> <br /> &quot;God&quot; is the most ready response, but is there anything else in the category of things that do not begin to exist? Is there any reason to think that there are?<br /> <br /> If not, that is if god is the only thing that never began to exist, then the argument MUST read thus:<br /> <br /> 1. Everything which is not god has a cause.<br /> <br /> 2. The universe is not god.<br /> <br /> 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.<br /> <br /> So, the person attempting to use Kalam to prove the existence of god is implicitly putting god into the premise, thereby rendering the argument hopelessly circular.<br /> <br /> {{wip}}</div> 67.170.86.255