That kind of
circular argument even goes back to explanations of the origin of the universe — according to the big bang theory (which I don't really have a problem with in the «big picture»).
Not exact matches
The fact that you honestly believe your ridiculously
circular «logic»
even begins to approach a reasoned, well - supported
argument is all the proof needed to demonstrate the destructive power of religion.
Even you acknowledge that the Bible is not proof unless you already believe in its accuracy and veracity, a classic
circular argument.
What I am pointing out is that,
even accepting the
circular argument the claimed accuracy is a fallacy.
############################ I'll have look at his list again, the stupid is pretty thick around here so its hard to keep them all straight, especially when they cant
even understand what a
circular argument is and is not.
It's kind of a
circular aspect of the
argument; given a hotspot it's going to end up cooling more effectively no matter where it is, but if it persists longer then it's true that it's going to be
even more effective.