I saw a post on another forum about the list of apologetic arguments, TAG being among them. It made me think of Waldork and how he made my quote list below. Since the TAG argument, which seems to be similar to Waldork's prepositional apologetics was presented a little more clearly, I think I understand now the rational for the before-now seemingly bare assertion that "without God, we have no justification for using logic". It also helped to explain his gem that I have in my signature below when he tried to justify the use of "circular reasoning".

It turns out, it's another example of how we need to nail down our terms before any exchange of ideas or debates start.

The TAG argument that I read had this to say (bold emphasis mine):

Quote:In the case of TAG, we start with logic, reason, and knowledge. It's argued that our logic is inherently circular (we use logic to create a hypothesis and then (dis)prove that hypothesis with logic). Therefore, we must conclude God is the source of our logic in order to avoid an infinite regress.

Now "GodWillsIt" is not an answer to this problem nor does it provide anything close to a satisfying answer (except perhaps to those looking to justify their pre-conceived convictions that God exists). But in this post, I'm focusing on their ideas of what constitutes "circular reasoning".

Circular reasoning, aka begging the question, is properly defined as
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies...stion.html

Quote:Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).

In the case of setting up the justification for the TAG or the prepositional argument, the charge of "circular reasoning" is unfounded. Others more familiar with philosophy can critique this thinking and see if I'm missing anything but here's how I currently see it:

1. If I say that a book proves that the same book is true because the same book says so, this is circular reasoning.
2. If I read another independent source that verifies the claims of the first book, this is not circular reasoning.

In the second point, just because you read a book doesn't mean your not allowed to read other books to verify the claims of the first one. The similar process involved that goes into reading books doesn't make all books the same and therefore using one to verify another circular.

I would also say it's not circular reasoning when you're speaking of personal preferences (but those more knowledgeable in philosophy, please correct me if I'm wrong here):

1. I like strawberry ice cream. Why? Because I just do.
2. I like logic. I like living in a rational society. I like what science does and I like living in the world it creates. Why? Because I just do.

Neither statement of preference requires logical justification and therefore avoids the problem of circular reasoning. The use of logic, contrary to prepositional apologetic assertions, requires no justification.

It seems to me that among many other problems with the TAG and "GodWillsIt" and "nyth nyth, you don't know everything therefore Jesus" arguments is they spuriously charge "circular reasoning", gloss over why and then use this as their justification to look for "something else in order to avoid infinite regress."

When employed by morons like Wal-dork circular reasoning always begins with the presumption that his particular god is real.

This is an impossible flaw to overlook.

(May 16, 2012 at 1:30 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: In the case of setting up the justification for the TAG or the prepositional argument, the charge of "circular reasoning" is unfounded. Others more familiar with philosophy can critique this thinking and see if I'm missing anything but here's how I currently see it:

1. If I say that a book proves that the same book is true because the same book says so, this is circular reasoning.

There is nothing circular about the defence of one book by said book, it isn't necessarily wrong but rather if one proposition attempts to prove something upon which it relies to be valid then it would be circular. For example, if I were to write a book and rely, in chapter 5, on something that I proved to be axiomatically true in chapter 1, then it would not be circular reasoning so long as I did not rely on what I am attempting to prove in order to assert the axiomatic truth's truthfulness.

The first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club! --xkcd

(June 1, 2012 at 1:56 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: The first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club! --xkcd

The first rule of tautology club is tautology, sir.

Beside the point. My main argument is the employment of logic or the preference for science is just that, a personal preference and it needs no outside justification, same as saying "I like strawberry ice cream".

TAG and presuppositional apologetics are attempts to manufacture a problem that doesn't exist so that they can then offer a contrived definition of "God" as the "solution" (even though it isn't a very meaningful solution) so they can arrive at their predetermined conclusion.

(June 1, 2012 at 2:51 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Beside the point. My main argument is the employment of logic or the preference for science is just that, a personal preference and it needs no outside justification, same as saying "I like strawberry ice cream".

TAG and presuppositional apologetics are attempts to manufacture a problem that doesn't exist so that they can then offer a contrived definition of "God" as the "solution" (even though it isn't a very meaningful solution) so they can arrive at their predetermined conclusion.

Yep.

Problem, action, solution.

Sounds plausible, but all made up.