Catch-22 is a work of fiction. It was written by Joseph Heller in the 60's. I have read is several times and enjoyed it. I think you are confused.
No, I am not confused.
catch-22
noun
noun:
catch-22; plural noun:
catch-22s; noun:
catch twenty-two; plural noun:
catch twenty-twos
- a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions.
"a catch-22 situation"
Origin
1970s: title of a novel by Joseph Heller (1961), in which the main character feigns madness in order to avoid dangerous combat missions, but his desire to avoid them is taken to prove his sanity.
Translate catch 22 to
Translations, word origin, and more definitions
Definitions from Oxford Languages
I didn't say that there is not. I said that your circular argument does not support your claim that there is.
I do not claim that there is a Catch-22. Baha'u'llah implied it and I believed it.
Circular has nothing to do with this. Something is either true or false.
Circular reasoning (
Latin:
circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as
circular logic) is a
logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.
[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning - Wikipedia
Atheists only show how ignorant they are when they play the worn out circular card,as if circular proves anything.
Are all circular arguments invalid?
No. The circularity does not reduce the validity of these
arguments in any way. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with
circular argument, although this does not mean that
all circular arguments are valid and/or sound. It should be more clear now that this line of
reasoning is perfectly valid.Aug 18, 2017
Circular arguments are perfectly valid - THE SKEPTICAL SCIENTIST Why is circular reasoning bad?
Circular arguments are perfectly valid
18th August 2017 by
Tim van der Zee
You have likely heard the claim that circular arguments are wrong or incoherent. In this short post I will outline why this is
not the case. Circular arguments are perfectly fine; in fact, they can be quite convincing!
Lets start with perhaps the most famous bad example of a circular argument:
God exists because the bible says so, and the bible is true because God exists.
It is clear that this is circular, as each statement depends on the other to be true. It’s also a bad argument from a logical standpoint, as logical arguments tend to be formulated in “if A than B”, and this formulation is missing here. This emphasizes the other weak aspect of this argumentation: both claims have a rather low prior probability.
Lets see what happens when we rephrase the above argument to the following:
If the the bible is true God exists, and, if God exists the bible is true.
While both claims still have the same very low probability, it is now a more coherent – albeit circular – line of reasoning. Is there anything wrong with these arguments
because they are circular? No.
The circularity does not reduce the validity of these arguments in any way. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with circular argument, although this does not mean that
all circular arguments are valid and/or sound.
Lets examine this a little further by stripping this argumentation type to its most abstract form:
If A then B. If B then A
It should be more clear now that this line of reasoning is perfectly valid. Each individual statement is perfectly valid, and the combination of the two are also valid. In fact, if B stands for something with a non-zero prior probability than the inclusion of the second argument
increases the probability that A is true. This is why these types of circular arguments are not only completely valid, they can be convincing as well – if used properly.
Circular arguments are perfectly valid
So here is my perfectly valid circular argument:
If what Baha'u'llah wrote is true, God exists, and, if God exists what Baha'u'llah wrote is true.
Nor do I believe that you know or are capable of knowing anything about a god. Nor do I believe that the person who you claim are messengers of god know or are capable of knowing anything about a god. And for very good reason.
Of course you do not
believe that I know or am capable of knowing anything about a God, but that does not mean I do not know anything about God.
Of course you do not
believe that the people who I believe are Messengers of God know or are capable of knowing anything about a God, but that does not mean they do not know anything about God.
Pray tell, what is your good reason.... I can't wait to refute your argument.
