http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/index.php?title=Circular_argument&feed=atom&action=historyCircular argument - Revision history2024-03-28T23:30:59ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.17.5http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/index.php?title=Circular_argument&diff=9619&oldid=prev67.170.86.255 at 01:14, 1 December 20102010-12-01T01:14:45Z<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 />
''"The study of physics is beneficial because good physics makes for useful analysis."''<br />
<br />
Here, we can see that the statement seems quite reasonable until we place it into a more explicit form:<br />
<br />
''"The study of physics is beneficial because physics makes for a beneficial study."''<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 "A is B, thus A is B" format. Instead, it appeals more to the "Argument from Personal Incredulity", 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 "Kalam Cosmological argument".<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 "begins to exist" 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 />
"God" 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