Circular Reasoning Is OK if You're a Theist

The whole video:

Yes, I do have a Patreon account, thank you for asking:

My other channel about other stuff:

My Twitter:

My tumbr:

My facebook:

Here’s my society6 store if you’re interested in my pretentious minimalist poster designs:

[DjVortex-w]

This is actually the first time I have ever seen an apologist actually explicitly arguing that circular reasoning is valid. I thought I had seen everything already, but this was new.

[lucidmoses]

Just tell this fellow; "I am god because I say so. I'm correct because I am god."

[LLorfa]

Mind blown. Special pleading.. for circular reasoning. Enabling a fallacy with another fallacy, and throwing in a strawman as an example. Creationist spaghetti code that still doesn't compile.

[NastyLittleBagginses]

So, circular reasoning is okay because of special pleading. Got it.

[TheBT]

Damn, you cut the dawkins quote too short :D

[DarranKern]

That's a misquote of Dawkins.
The actual quote is
"It works... _bitches._ "

[dogless]

That guy is the ultimate standard of idiocy.

[Thirdlegsale]

Ahhh Cmon let Richard finish. Here I'll finish for him... It works....BITCHES!

[KEvronista]

1:24 _"we must, in fact, reason circularly when we reach our ultimate standard."_
no, we mustn't, unless we're irrational. a rational person starts by assuming his unprovable ultimate standards are true, then reasons linearly from there.
KEvron

[ShadinCore]

So, basically, it's ok if you're full of shit, as long as it's Gods shit

[fedos]

Once again apologetics boils down to "I'm a willfully ignorant liar, therefore there's an invisible demon in the sky who will torture you for eternity if you don't believe in and worship him without evidence for his existence".

[pilgrimpater]

Apologists never cease to amaze me. Are they so dim that they cannot see their glaring double standards?

[knutthompson]

Ah, so he solves circular reasoning by special pleading. One fallacy justified by another.

[jordanw]

The ontological argument is a perfect example of circular reasoning.

[skelskeleton]

Theist: God obviously doesnt need a creator because he is the most complex being!

Atheist: But you say the universe is so complex it requires a creator?

Theist: Correct!

Atheist: Then why do you end that reasoning at god?

Theist: Because God! :D

Atheist: ...

[johnfaber]

Why on earth did you exclude Dawkin's very next word from that quote?
It is absolutely essential to the message!

[Pikwhip]

hmm... I wonder how he defines an "ultimate standard". Whatever I want to be true, the ultimate double standard.

[petehjr]

"Ultimate Standard!" Now with a side of Nacho Cheese blasted flavor for only $12.99 at The Circle Jerk Hut! Tuesday is Ladies Night!

[ChipArgyle]

All you have to do to demolish this 'foundation' for circular reasoning is go to the faith argument.
Peter, as a Christian, has faith that the Bible is correct. Abdul, as a Muslim, has faith that the Qur'an is correct. One must be absolutely incorrect, yet both used faith in the inerrancy of their preferred religious tome to arrive at their "truth" statement. The double-whammy against using faith to find ultimate truth is that while we know without a doubt that either Peter or Abdul is wrong, there is also a very high probability that the other one is also incorrect.

[laser]

3:00 my answer would be because science works and I can demonstrate that it works.