Why circular reasoning is bad.

[Dr.Dog]

It's hard to believe that I actually have to start this, but since this has bled over into several threads I thought it best to separate it out in order to clarify just exactly why circular reasoning is bad, when used in the way that it is typically used within this forum.  This thread / debate is only about circular reasoning, not about religion, cars, money, politics; this thread is only to clarify what circular reasoning is and why you shouldn't do it.  

I will start off grabbing a formal definition from an English professor who has already summed up the basics.  

DEFINITION

Circular Reasoning – supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion.
 
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.
 

EXAMPLE 1

A confused student argues: “You can’t give me a C.  I’m an A student!”

Circular reasoning is problematic because the claim is made on grounds that cannot be accepted as true — because those very grounds are in dispute.  How can a student claim to be an A student when he just earned a C?

To clarify, no one is an “A student” by definition.  Grades are earned in every class and are derived from a variety of different methods.  The requirements in one class are set by the school and the instructor, so the same class taught by a different teacher or in a different location should yield two very different results (final grades).  Merely claiming to be an A student does not make the claim valid.

NOTE: The false authority fallacy also applies here — you cannot use yourself as your own authority with total certainty.  A doctor is more qualified to diagnose your shoulder pain than you are; your teachers are better qualified to evaluate your performance than a student.
 

EXAMPLE 2

A satisfied citizen says: “Richardson is the most successful mayor the town has ever had because he's the best mayor of our history.”

The second part of this sentence offers no evidence — it simply repeats the claim that was already presented.  Don’t be fooled into believing that using the word “because” in an argument automatically provides a valid reason.  Be sure to provide clear evidence to support your claims, not a version of the premise (the initial statement in an argument).

 
EXAMPLE 3

An obvious non-smoker blurts: “Can a person quit smoking?  Of course — as long as he has sufficient willpower and really wants to quit.”

This statement contains a more subconscious version of circular reasoning.  The intended argument simply repeats itself, disguised as a logical statement.  The warrant is simple: “A person can quit because he can.”  True, any smoker can quit, but the task is not as obvious or as easy to accomplish as the statement suggests.  The arguer must provide reasons to suggest how a person can overcome an addiction, not to simply identify the obvious use of will power.  This example also falls into distortion and the only reason fallacies.

[Dr.Dog]

To clarify upon my initial point, not all circular reasoning is fallacious, just most as typically used within the debate forums. 

Suppose, for instance, that we argue that a number of propositions, p1, p2,…, pn are equivalent by arguing as follows (where "p => q" means that p implies q):

p1 => p2 => … => pn => p1

Then we have clearly argued in a circle, but this is a standard form of argument in mathematics to show that a set of propositions are all equivalent to each other. So, when is it fallacious to argue in a circle?

For an argument to have any epistemological or dialectical force, it must start from premisses already known or believed by its audience, and proceed to a conclusion not known or believed. This, of course, rules out the worst cases of Begging the Question, when the conclusion is the very same proposition as the premiss, since one cannot both believe and not believe the same thing. A viciously circular argument is one with a conclusion based ultimately upon that conclusion itself, and such arguments can never advance our knowledge.

Ultimately, circular arguments and/or tautologies are yet another illogical way to argue because they do not bring any new information into the discussion. Rather, they argue what has already been (correctly or incorrectly) stated, and do not back it up with something else.

To break it down into layman's terms, essentially all you are doing is regurgitating the same point that you have already made and reinforcing it using the point you made. 

Circular reasoning is also known as “tautology” or a “tautological argument.”

[Dr.Dog]

Note that the following terms are typically used interchangeably, as for the purpose of this conversation they are close enough to be the same:  tautology, circular reasoning, and "begging the question". 

"Begging the question" itself was the old term that was used for what we commonly today refer to as "circular reasoning". 

"Begging the question" is also referred to as petitio principii, "assuming the initial point".  It relates closely with "circular reasoning", otherwise known as "circulus in probando" (Latin for circle in proving). 

[Dr.Dog]

Since all 3 terms listed above relate to the arguments that have been put forth at several points in this forum, I'll start off with Webster's online definition of "circular argument". 

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/Be/Begging+the+Question.html

Circular Argument
A Circular argument is one which assumes the very thing it aims to prove; in essence, the proposition is used to prove itself, a tactic which is neither very persuasive nor logically valid. For example:

    I am not lying. Since I'm not lying, I must be telling the truth.

While at first glance this statements appear logical, it does nothing to prove the truthfulness of the speaker. In seeking to prove his own truthfulness, the speaker asks his audience to assume that he is telling the truth.

Now here lies the trap, the pitfall in the argument that many have used.  You are arguing from a point where you assume the source is automatically to be trusted 100% without fail.  People point to the source and say "how can you know this to be true?" and the response typically given relates back to material from the source itself.  This is where you enter into logical fallacy. 

For further logical proofs please take a look at the following document:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:9IqrDvy63KYJ:www.cis.hut.fi/AKRR05/papers/amklc05hahn.pdf+difference+between+begging+the+question+and+circular+reasoning&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbQxh19X2mYuiTUK8LZqnfJxoF-_3g

[Snake-eyes]

Saying that you should exercise because it’s good for you isn't circular reasoning, it's a correct statement.

[Dr.Dog]

Saying that you should exercise because it’s good for you isn't circular reasoning, it's a correct statement.

You are focusing on the content of the original statement and not the statement itself and how it was structured, thus you missed the point.

[Snake-eyes]

Stating that exercise is good for you isn't restating the conclusion as health isn't the only reason for exercising.

[Dr.Dog]

Stating that exercise is good for you isn't restating the conclusion as health isn't the only reason for exercising.

*Sigh* yet another Snake-eyes troll thread.  I humored you yesterday because I was over caffeinated but I am not so inclined today.  You aren't debating what I posted, you are only grabbing one tiny part, taking it out of context, and changing the entire focus of the debate to that tiny part in order so that you can troll me and get me to lose focus upon the main point of the debate which is circular reasoning. 

If I state "I'm cool because I'm a good guy", whether or not I'm a good guy is irrelevant to the way in which I structured the statement.  The statement is using circular reasoning.  If you want to debate the actual subject I will debate with you, but I'm not going to fall into one of your post-every-minute thread craps.

[Snake-eyes]

I'm pointing out how one of the examples is faulty.

There are multiple tangible reasons to exercise, therefore pointing out which you're talking about isn't the same as "You should exercise because you should exercise".

[Dr.Dog]

I'm pointing out how one of the examples is faulty.

The reason you state is faulty, which I have already pointed out above.  Either fix your statement or concede that you didn't read the actual arguments brought forth. 

There are multiple tangible reasons to exercise, therefore pointing out which you're talking about isn't the same as "You should exercise because you should exercise".

Again you are taking things out of context and not focusing on the statement itself on purpose to spam the thread with two sentence replies.

[Snake-eyes]

I read the example and saying that “You should exercise because it’s good for you” isn't necessarily saying, “You should exercise because you should exercise.”

[Dr.Dog]

I read the example and saying that “You should exercise because it’s good for you” isn't necessarily saying, “You should exercise because you should exercise.”

The reason the statement is circular is because it doesn't state why exercise is good for you, only that it is good for you. 

"You should exercise" --> this part of the sentence is the premise.
"because it's good for you" --> this part of the sentence is supposed to support the premise and state why exercise is good for you, not simply restate the base assumption that exercise is good for you. 

Thus logically the statement is essentially stating that "you should exercise because you should exercise".  A correct version of the statement would be "You should exercise because studies have shown it leads to a longer lifespan".  This statement is supporting the premise with a why, instead of just saying "because I said so". 

Another example, if I state "You should keep smoking because it's good for you", you know the statement itself is false, but it also falls under circular reasoning the same as the statement above.  Essentially the person making the statement is assuming that you trust them so completely that you cannot question their will. The statement is essentially saying "you should keep smoking because you should keep smoking".

I'll bring up another example:  Kid wants to stay up, mother tells child to go to bed.  Child asks "why do I have to go to bed?", to which the mother replies "because I said so".  Again this is circular reasoning, essentially they are saying "you should go to bed because you should go to bed". 

[Kang Council]

Ive read what you posted and I don't agree entirely.  I have to say I think Snake eyes is right.  It seems your initial premise seems logical and reasonable.  My only problem is some of the later examples you have given aren't that bad, especially the one about smoking.  My problem is if you are going to label some of the statements as circular reasoning then everybody is gulity of it including yourself.  I also think some examples maybe subjective but you are labelling them as circular reasoning when it can be open to interpretation.

The reason the statement is circular is because it doesn't state why exercise is good for you, only that it is good for you. 

"You should exercise" --> this part of the sentence is the premise.
"because it's good for you" --> this part of the sentence is supposed to support the premise and state why exercise is good for you, not simply restate the base assumption that exercise is good for you. 

Thats why I think you need to re-think your examples.  Its obvious why exercise is good for you and we don't need to elaborate.

[Dr.Dog]

Ive read what you posted and I don't agree entirely.  I have to say I think Snake eyes is right.  It seems your initial premise seems logical and reasonable.  My only problem is some of the later examples you have given aren't that bad, especially the one about smoking.  My problem is if you are going to label some of the statements as circular reasoning then everybody is gulity of it including yourself.  I also think some examples maybe subjective but you are labelling them as circular reasoning when it can be open to interpretation.

Thats why I think you need to re-think your examples.  Its obvious why exercise is good for you and we don't need to elaborate.

The debate is about the sentence structure itself, not it's contents.  You are focusing on the contents of the sentence thus you fail to understand what I am saying above.

[Dr.Dog]

I will give some more examples of circular logic, and explain each.  These examples will contain both true and false statements in order to show you the futility in trying to debate using circular logic. 

"I cannot have failed this test because I have passed all the tests I've taken before". 
Premise:  "I cannot have failed this test".  Ok, now let's see why. 
Supporting the premise:  "because I pass all tests I've taken before".  Circular logic again - despite the fact that he may have literally passed every test up until that point, it still doesn't mean that he possesses the skill to pass any test, only the tests he has already taken.  Thus the statement is based upon a false premise.  He's supporting the premise with an assertion that mirrors the premise. 

"I am the best president because I am the best."  Whether or not the president saying this was the best president or not is irrelevant to the logic behind the statement.  He is saying he is the best president with nothing to back it up; essentially he is saying that you have to trust him completely because what he said is true, without supporting evidence to back it up. 

"You should keep eating junk food because it's good".  Now this circular statement is the same as those listed above; there is no supporting statement to add to the initial premise, essentially stating "you should eat junk food because you should eat junk food". 

"You should not each junk food because it's bad".  Same as above, this is a circular logic statement.  Whether or not junk food is good or bad can vary depending on the quality for which you are speaking.  Bad for you?  Tastes good?  Makes you feel good?  Makes you feel bad?  In what way is it good or bad, and why?  The part of the sentence that is supposed to be backing up the initial premise is nowhere to be found, only a replication of the initial statement in different words. 

This is why debating using circular logic is bad.  You essentially only allow yourself to keep repeating what is within that circle of logic with no consideration for anything outside of that statement whatsoever.  For all intents and purposes, it's the same exact thing as a program which has begun to loop.  That program, if it's stuck in a loop, just continuously repeats what it's doing over and over with no input, making it useless in the vast majority of circumstances.  It's bad programming, and to use that same structure in language is using bad logic.  There is absolutely no point in debating anything with someone that brings a circular logic, because they will just continuously loop around that circle over and over, with nothing to add structure outside of their loop. 

[Kang Council]

The debate is about the sentence structure itself, not it's contents.  You are focusing on the contents of the sentence thus you fail to understand what I am saying above.

With all due respect how does that make any sense?  Ok the debate is about sentence structure, but how can you have a debate about sentences and the content of the sentence not be an important part of the debate? You can't have a sentence without any contents.  You yourself are using the contents to further your point and now you're saying thats not what the debate is about.

I think I do understand what you're saying I think don't agree for example the one about the student makes perfect sense other examples seem to be dubious.

I will give some more examples of circular logic, and explain each.  These examples will contain both true and false statements in order to show you the futility in trying to debate using circular logic.  

"I cannot have failed this test because I have passed all the tests I've taken before".  
Premise:  "I cannot have failed this test".  Ok, now let's see why.  
Supporting the premise:  "because I pass all tests I've taken before".  Circular logic again - despite the fact that he may have literally passed every test up until that point, it still doesn't mean that he possesses the skill to pass any test, only the tests he has already taken.  Thus the statement is based upon a false premise.  He's supporting the premise with an assertion that mirrors the premise.  

"I am the best president because I am the best."  Whether or not the president saying this was the best president or not is irrelevant to the logic behind the statement.  He is saying he is the best president with nothing to back it up; essentially he is saying that you have to trust him completely because what he said is true, without supporting evidence to back it up.  

"You should keep eating junk food because it's good".  Now this circular statement is the same as those listed above; there is no supporting statement to add to the initial premise, essentially stating "you should eat junk food because you should eat junk food".  

"You should not each junk food because it's bad".  Same as above, this is a circular logic statement.  Whether or not junk food is good or bad can vary depending on the quality for which you are speaking.  Bad for you?  Tastes good?  Makes you feel good?  Makes you feel bad?  In what way is it good or bad, and why?  The part of the sentence that is supposed to be backing up the initial premise is nowhere to be found, only a replication of the initial statement in different words.  

This is why debating using circular logic is bad.  You essentially only allow yourself to keep repeating what is within that circle of logic with no consideration for anything outside of that statement whatsoever.  For all intents and purposes, it's the same exact thing as a program which has begun to loop.  That program, if it's stuck in a loop, just continuously repeats what it's doing over and over with no input, making it useless in the vast majority of circumstances.  It's bad programming, and to use that same structure in language is using bad logic.  There is absolutely no point in debating anything with someone that brings a circular logic, because they will just continuously loop around that circle over and over, with nothing to add structure outside of their loop.  

Again Kut your first example is perfectly fine and I think I also agree with the second example.

[Dr.Dog]

With all due respect how does that make any sense?  Ok the debate is about sentence structure, but how can you have a debate about sentences and the content of the sentence not be an important part of the debate? You can't have a sentence without any contents.  You yourself are using the contents to further your point and now you're saying thats not what the debate is about.

I think I do understand what you're saying I think don't agree for example the one about the student makes perfect sense other examples seem to be dubious.

This thread is about a certain debate technique, circular reasoning, not about the content of the examples.  Think of it in terms of computer programming; when you study meta data, you are studying the ways in which data is being handled and trends within the data, not the data itself. 

For an example of how meta data works in the real world, say you have a database which has 52 tables in it.  Each of those tables has hundreds of thousands of rows of data.  Say a user wants to be able to drill down into specific data which has cross references of 24 of those 52 tables.  At that point you have to approach the data from a metadata point of view in order to make sense of it, e.g. what keys tie those databases together that can be used as a cross reference?  What commonalities do they have?  If the user simply searches one table at a time then it's going to take a very very long time in order to reach anything meaningful; by tying together the tables using a metadata approach, you allow the user to link in the different tables using commonalities or in other words common keys to each table.  In this example, by approaching the problem using a metadata structured approach you vastly reduce the amount of gruntwork needed to create the specific data output that is scattered across the 24 tables to the user in a way that doesn't tie up the whole database.

It's the same thing here; what I am discussing is why a certain debate technique is bad, why it's bad, and how to avoid using it, since every time that debate technique is used it ends up nullifying any meaningful discourse from the participants in the debate.  It doesn't matter what the content of the sentence in the example is but rather how the sentence is structured.  I can go on and on listing examples of circular logic used in sentences that illustrate both true and false conditions.  The problem is that using circular logic when debating causes the debate to be locked within a certain set of parameters. 

On one hand you'll have the circular logic debater who constantly repeats the same thing in different ways, on the other hand you'll have someone actually trying to get somewhere but when someone is using circular logic the whole discussion is pointless to begin with.  It's not about being right or wrong, but rather the inability to determine if one is right or wrong due to the way the dialogue is written.  Constantly making statements and then not backing them up with anything but the original premise offers nothing of value to the debate. 

Think about this statement: "My team is the best because they are great!"  What backs up that statement?  What proof is there within, that shows their team versus another team?  If you have two people from different teams both stating that "my team is the best because it is great!", how would one go about determining which team is the best when you have no supporting evidence to back up either claim? 

[Snake-eyes]

Ive read what you posted and I don't agree entirely.  I have to say I think Snake eyes is right.  It seems your initial premise seems logical and reasonable.  My only problem is some of the later examples you have given aren't that bad, especially the one about smoking.  My problem is if you are going to label some of the statements as circular reasoning then everybody is gulity of it including yourself.  I also think some examples maybe subjective but you are labelling them as circular reasoning when it can be open to interpretation.

Thats why I think you need to re-think your examples.  Its obvious why exercise is good for you and we don't need to elaborate.

Exactly.

[Original Lumpy,brah]

I'm curious as to why content of the sentence should always be ignored?
I can't help but see what you're saying Kutulu and I have no problem with it but Snake Eyes is right on the sentence he picked.
"Don't smoke cigarettes because they're bad for you" is a correct statement,there is evidence behind it.

[Dr.Dog]

I'm curious as to why content of the sentence should always be ignored?
I can't help but see what you're saying Kutulu and I have no problem with it but Snake Eyes is right on the sentence he picked.
"Don't smoke cigarettes because they're bad for you" is a correct statement,there is evidence behind it.

The fact that cigarettes are bad for you is correct, but the way that the sentence was structured was created with circular logic in that it creates an initial premise and then tries to back it up with the original premise, which does nothing to forward the actual discussion. 

The reason I stated the content of which the sentence itself is referring to should be ignored in this thread is because this thread was created to discuss circular logic, not any number of other things which I could have used as examples of circular logic. 

[Original Lumpy,brah]

The fact that cigarettes are bad for you is correct, but the way that the sentence was structured was created with circular logic in that it creates an initial premise and then tries to back it up with the original premise, which does nothing to forward the actual discussion. 

The reason I stated the content of which the sentence itself is referring to should be ignored in this thread is because this thread was created to discuss circular logic, not any number of other things which I could have used as examples of circular logic. 

The one above is an exception-"don't scratch your balls because scratching your balls is bad"-is truly circular.

[safado]

true, scratching your balls is magnificent, well, scracthing mine is, I don't know how scratching your's are? Kind a nasty I presume

[Flyattractor]

And Kutty claims not to have a "religion".

[Dr.Dog]

And Kutty claims not to have a "religion".

Totally useless statement as usual from the troll.

[awisemansays]

how about "we can trust reason, because its reasonable to trust reason".  Is this a circular statement?   

[Kang Council]

Is it just me or am I the only one who really doesn't agree with Kutulu?  I agree with most of what was said though.

[Dr.Dog]

how about "we can trust reason, because its reasonable to trust reason".  Is this a circular statement?   

Yes that's a circular statement, but that doesn't mean the content of the statement is incorrect.  As stated above, I can list any number of statements where the values contained within the statement are true but the statement itself is using circular reasoning, making it a pointless statement to say.

[Flyattractor]

Now your just going around in circles.

[Dr.Dog]

Now your just going around in circles.

You really need to go back to English class, son.  It's "You're", not "your", as in "you are". 

[Flyattractor]

Nah.
I prefer it this way.

[Dr.Dog]

Nah.
I prefer it this way.

You prefer to be ignored by most people because your writing is so poor that they won't even try to understand what you wrote? 

[Flyattractor]

I got you babe.

[awisemansays]

Yes that's a circular statement, but that doesn't mean the content of the statement is incorrect.  As stated above, I can list any number of statements where the values contained within the statement are true but the statement itself is using circular reasoning, making it a pointless statement to say.

how might you reword that statement so that it is not circular?   of course, considering the follow up questions that would no doubt be asked of your statement, how can you avoid a circular response?

[Dr.Dog]

how might you reword that statement so that it is not circular?   of course, considering the follow up questions that would no doubt be asked of your statement, how can you avoid a circular response?

To avoid a circular response all you have to do is support the premise with something other than the premise. 

Let's take the original statement which you brought up: "we can trust reason, because its reasonable to trust reason".

Now - you have "we can trust reason" --> premise
"because it's reasonable to trust reason" --> restating the premise. 

What you would have to do is back up the premise with something else that supports it.  The whole purpose of the premise is the part of the statement created to support the conclusion.  So if your conclusion was that things presented within the bible were good for humankind, you would want to support to make the conclusion sound. 

So let's restate the original sentence, but this time we'll reinforce it:  "We can trust reason because it has allowed us to advance from the Paleolithic age to the Neolithic age."  In this instance we are referring to the age of the cave men (Paleolithic) to the age of Neolithic (farmers, settlements and pottery).  We are using evidence to support the claim.  You aren't just limited to using evidence though.  There are 5 major ways to support a premise:

Supporting arguments.  A supporting argument is one which has as its conclusion the same statement as the premise being supported. All premises can be supported in this way, but such supporting arguments are often not stated. A special type of supporting argument is a definition, and while these, too, are usually unstated, at times it is necessary to define a term because either the term itself or the particular denotation being used is unusual.

Assumptions. Eventually, all support for premises can be traced back to a set of beliefs which the person making the argument considers to be self-evident, and therefore not in need of further support or analysis. These may be called assumptions, presumptions, suppositions, or, in certain situations, postulates and axioms. Such assumptions serve as the premises for supporting arguments and, in general, any premise can be called an assumption.

Evidence. A premise can be made more acceptable when it supported by various kinds of evidence: statistical studies, historical information, physical evidence, observations, or experiments, eyewitness accounts, and so on. The relative strength of evidence is determined by how reliable a person believes it to be. Almost no evidence is beyond dispute--we might challenge the methodology of a study, the accuracy of the information, the manner in which physical evidence was collected, and the eyesight or motivation of an eyewitness. And remember that the evidence only supports the premises--evidence cannot be an argument itself.

Authority. Sometimes, we are not in a position to judge supporting evidence for ourselves: there may simply be too much of it, or it may be too technical in nature, or it may not be directly available to us. In those cases we often rely on the judgments of others, authorities whom we believe to be more likely to come to an accurate evaluation of the evidence than we are ourselves. Though we tend to think of such expertise in scientific, medical, or other scholarly fields, authority in arguments can also come from religious teachings, folk wisdom, and popular sayings--anything or anyone that we accept as somehow able to reach a more accurate evaluation. The relative strength of an authority in an argument depends on how willing a person is to accept the judgment of that source, but even in the strongest of cases, use of an authority merely supports a premise, and does not make an argument by itself.

Explanations and anecdotes. Sometimes, we are more willing to accept a premise if we are given background information or specific examples. Such explanations and accounts are not given the importance of evidence or authority in an argument. Anecdotal evidence, for example, is by definition less statistically reliable than other sorts of evidence, and explanations do not carry the weight of authority. But both anecdotal evidence and explanations may affect our understanding of a premise, and therefore influence our judgment. The relative strength of an explanation or an anecdote is usually a function of its clarity and applicability to the premise it is supporting.

[awisemansays]

To avoid a circular response all you have to do is support the premise with something other than the premise.

true.  the singular sentence may not be circle, but the question is, how do you make the arguement non circular?

  "We can trust reason because it has allowed us to advance from the Paleolithic age to the Neolithic age." 

To which might be asked "is this a reasonable reason to trust reason?" If you answer "no" then your previous statement is meaningless.  but  suppose you answer "yes".
Then, one might ask "is a reasonable reason, a reason to trust reason?" IF you answer "no" then your previous statements are meaningless.  but suppose you answer "yes"

Then your entire arguement is essentially the same statement that I posted in my previous post.  "We trust reason, because its reasonable to trust reason"

Assumptions. Eventually, all support for premises can be traced back to a set of beliefs which the person making the argument considers to be self-evident, and therefore not in need of further support or analysis. These may be called assumptions, presumptions, suppositions, or, in certain situations, postulates and axioms. Such assumptions serve as the premises for supporting arguments and, in general, any premise can be called an assumption.

yep.  But if the question is how can we know these assumptions are true, and we are questioning our own reliabilty to determine what is "self evident", on what do we rely?

[Dr.Dog]

true.  the singular sentence may not be circle, but the question is, how do you make the arguement non circular?

By reinforcing the premise with something, as stated above.

To which might be asked "is this a reasonable reason to trust reason?" If you answer "no" then your previous statement is meaningless.  but  suppose you answer "yes".
Then, one might ask "is a reasonable reason, a reason to trust reason?" IF you answer "no" then your previous statements are meaningless.  but suppose you answer "yes"

Then your entire arguement is essentially the same statement that I posted in my previous post.  "We trust reason, because its reasonable to trust reason"

I already gave an example above of a better way to rephrase the statement.  The question itself that you just posted circular, therefore pointless to even ask.  That's like asking "is it sunny when it's sunny?" or "is the sky blue when the sky is blue?"  The answer is already in the question, so of course the answer to either one is yes.  That's just common sense.  If you abandon all reason then you might as well not even be here typing replies, because someone without the ability to reason wouldn't survive more than a couple days in modern society.  Even most insane people still have plenty of reasoning that they do in order to keep themselves alive. 

yep.  But if the question is how can we know these assumptions are true, and we are questioning our own reliabilty to determine what is "self evident", on what do we rely?

You avoid asking a circular question and you avoid giving a circular statement.  Either one leads to a logic trap and a closed loop system.  What you want to do is reinforce with outside points, listed above. 

[Original Lumpy,brah]

By reinforcing the premise with something, as stated above.

I already gave an example above of a better way to rephrase the statement.  The question itself that you just posted circular, therefore pointless to even ask.  That's like asking "is it sunny when it's sunny?" or "is the sky blue when the sky is blue?"  The answer is already in the question, so of course the answer to either one is yes.  That's just common sense.  If you abandon all reason then you might as well not even be here typing replies, because someone without the ability to reason wouldn't survive more than a couple days in modern society.  Even most insane people still have plenty of reasoning that they do in order to keep themselves alive. 

You avoid asking a circular question and you avoid giving a circular statement.  Either one leads to a logic trap and a closed loop system.  What you want to do is reinforce with outside points, listed above. 

That's just the thing,awiseman has the ability to reason and his reasoning has allowed him to see that god's existence is evident.

[Dr.Dog]

That's just the thing,awiseman has the ability to reason and his reasoning has allowed him to see that god's existence is evident.

If you don't back up your statements you are really doing nothing more than blowing hot air.  If you can't think hard enough to create something of substance, don't bother replying to my post. 

[Original Lumpy,brah]

If you don't back up your statements you are really doing nothing more than blowing hot air.  If you can't think hard enough to create something of substance, don't bother replying to my post. 

You aren't posting anything but hot air yourself, just because awiseman is able to discern that god's existence is evident doesn't mean you have to.Calm down.

[Dr.Dog]

You aren't posting anything but hot air yourself, just because awiseman is able to discern that god's existence is evident doesn't mean you have to.Calm down.

LOL you're trying pretty hard to troll up my thread, but you're failing so far.  Gotta come up with better than that brah.