I love religion!

[Zagreus]

Purple Rabbit, thanks for the obviously well thought out answer. We seem to agree a fair bit, so if you’ve read the whole thread then I’ve obviously not conveyed my meaning quite as I intended.

No, many religious people teach that the followers should not question, and should believe in things that there is little evidence for. (A Muslim would argue the Qur’an is proof of God’s existence. I know that’s a circular argument, but I’ve seen it used. Therefore you can’t say there is NO evidence, but there is certainly no ‘scientific’ evidence.)

No, it was a comment containing both a theist view and an atheist view in one. The trick in understanding ideas is to see things from another point of view in order to examine your own. My post contains two ideas:

Theist: God exists, and He shows Himself to humanity via prophets and so on, therefore the Qur’an is evidence that God exists.

Atheist: There is no scientific, empirical evidence that God exists.

You have gone from the assumption that God doesn’t exist to the conclusion that the Qur’an is wrong. If the Qur’an is right, it’s not circular, as God caused the Holy text, and therefore it is evidence. Only from a non-believer’s view is that incorrect.

I side with Leo here. Either your remark is silly or you are extremely sloppy with defining the terms you use. Though evidence in a broad sense may include everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion, in debate not all 'evidence' is seen as valid evidence.

It’s more a case of the fact that my remark wasn’t intended seriously, especially the clarification one. I am not saying a circular argument constitutes true evidence, or even a logical argument (I wouldn’t have passed my degree if I thought that!), but the statement I said was one that I have seen made. If I thought that was evidence, then surely I would at the very least class myself as agnostic? I don’t, I’m an atheist.

Reasoning from the Qur’an texts that assert that god exists, to conclude that god exists is circular reasoning…

Totally agree with you here. Hypothetically my point was that a Muslim (for instance) might argue something along the lines of there is evidence of God via the existence of a Holy Book. Imagine you are in a snowy forest and can see no wildlife at all. There is no sign of life, apart from the fact you can see the tracks left by a wolf, so you assume wolfs exist. Some Muslims might, (I have seen them do this, as I said), use this as evidence that Allah exists; He left tracks (The Qur’an.) I know this is flawed logic, and I only mentioned it in the first place as a demonstration of arguments I have read and heard, not as one I think is valid.

You bring up empirical evidence yourself as an acceptable alternative but non-empirical deductional proof is valid also in debate. Still you put the words in the mouth of the atheist that all evidence must be empirical.

I disagree here if we are trying to prove existence. Deductional proof does not validate the existence of a deity. You can logically prove things by definition, but that does not mean they exist. It can work in debate if it’s theoretical, but not in physical reality.

In trying to see "things from another point of view in order to examine your own" you stretch yourself beyond the boundary of logic and forget that both theists and atheists implicitly or explicitly accept the rules of informal logic in which circular reasoning is fallacious when engaging in debate. This is necessary to be able to communicate. If a theist or atheist chooses to accept what is considered illogic such as the circular reasoning in your examples all gates to hell are open for we should accept on word alone all assertions being made. There is no halfway into the realm of illogic. Once you let in illogic all argument disintegrates.

Hmmm, not quite, but I agree with you. Thing is, once you get really into theological ideas you inevitably get into symbolic and codified language. Many religious ideas aren’t quite ‘illogical’ if you see them from their point of view; i.e. Qur’an is proof of God’s existence. I am going beyond my logic, but I can still try to see other’s views. Once you go into the philosophical ideas deeply, they create their own logic rather than working by simplistic means. The Qabalah could be an example of this.

Circular arguments should be dismissed now though, that was more a dig at those who use them, as opposed to a serious attempt to justify them.

So if you mean the word 'evidence' to include invalid evidence, circular reasoning counts as evidence brought to the table. But accepting this as evidence in that sense does not make it valid evidence. It is clear however that both theists an atheists want their evidence to be not just evidence in that broad sense but also valid evidence under the rules of logic.

I don’t mean this at all, it was a flippant remark.