It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Circular reasoning (also known as paradoxical thinking or circular logic), is a logical fallacy in which "the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with". A circular argument will always be logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and will not lack relevance. Circular logic cannot prove a conclusion because, if the conclusion it doubted, the premise which leads to it will also be doubted. Academic Douglas Walton used the following example of a fallacious circular argument:
"Wellington is in New Zealand.
Therefore, Wellington is in New Zealand"
He notes that, although the argument is deductively valid, it cannot prove that Wellington is in New Zealand. because it contains no evidence that is distinct from the conclusion. The context - that of an argument - means that the proposition does not meet the requirement of proving the statement, thus it is a fallacy. He proposes that the the context of a dialogue determines whether a circular argument is fallacious: if it forms part of an argument, then it is. Citing Cederblom and Paulsen 1986:109) Hugh G. Gauch observes that non-logical facts can be difficult to capture formally:
Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion. To say, “You should exercise because it’s good for you” is really saying, “You should exercise because you should exercise.”
It shares much with the false authority fallacy because we accept these statements based solely on the fact that someone else claims it to be so. Often, we feel we can trust another person so much that we often accept his claims without testing the logic.This is called blind trust, and it is very dangerous. We might as well just talk in circles.
I have a cousin who is Catholic. He had twin babies that were born many months early and were lucky to have lived. His very Catholic mother wanted to bring a priest in a have them baptized while in the hospital. The hospital staff would not allow it because the babies were in special care to keep them alive. My cousin's mother called the babies "heathens" because of this. It really hurt my cousin. I felt so sorry for him.
Originally posted by Klassified
To fundamentalist christians, that's what we are. Godless heathens.
Yeah, it was bad. They are not on good terms right now. As a matter of fact, I'm the only one in the family that he talks to.
Originally posted by Klassified
Wow! That's hardcore for a Catholic. They're usually a little easier going than that.
Any single entity claiming to have the "actual" interpretation of the Bible is wrong,
You have to come to your own conclusions, and if you've truly studied the Bible, you can come to no other conclusion than the ones presented in this video.
If you've come to other conclusions, you've failed Gods test.
Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by EnochWasRight
God was greater than Jesus, but they were one.
What I take from this is that we all come from Source, and so Source is greater than any of us...and yet we are made from Source's essence... i.e. energy. Thus, we are one with Source as well.