Go to Main Menu or Start at the Introductory Page
To most circular reasoning is more of a logical fallacy than a valid argument. This is assumed so because circular reasoning resembles that of the Begging the Question Fallacy. The most common form of this fallacy is when the first claim is initially loaded with the very conclusion one has yet to prove. Basically it is the speaker or author then tries to “prove” his or her assertion by merely repeating it in different words.
Obviously the premise is not logically irrelevant to the conclusion, for if the premise is true the conclusion must also be true. It is, however, logically irrelevant in proving the conclusion. In the example, the author is repeating the same point in different words, and then attempting to “prove” the first assertion with the second one. A more complex but equally fallacious type of circular reasoning is to create a circular chain of reasoning like this one: “God exists.” “How do you know that God exists?” “The Bible says so.” “Why should I believe the Bible?” “Because it’s the inspired word of God.” If we draw this out as a chart, it looks like this:
The so-called “final proof” relies on unproven evidence set forth initially as the subject of debate. Basically, the argument goes in an apparent circle, with each step of the argument relying on a previous one, which in turn relies on the first argument yet to be proven. I think the question at hand now is: Is Circular Reasoning valid is some circumstances of argument? Here are two videos of a Christian and then an Atheist using circular reasoning.