Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
You're creating a strawman, but I'm not sure if it's deliberate or if it's unintentional simply because you don't understand this topic as well as you think you do.
One way of thinking about is to look at the nature of a circle. A circle, by its nature, is round, and by its nature is the definition of roundness. We don't look at a circle and declare that it's round based on some external standard of roundness. Rather, a circle is, in and of itself, the standard of roundness, and we could not know the concept of roundness apart from a circle. This is not circular reasoning. Well, you know what I mean.
Substitute "circle" and "roundness" with "God" and "goodness" and maybe you'll begin to understand.
One way of thinking about is to look at the nature of a circle. A circle, by its nature, is round, and by its nature is the definition of roundness. We don't look at a circle and declare that it's round based on some external standard of roundness. Rather, a circle is, in and of itself, the standard of roundness, and we could not know the concept of roundness apart from a circle. This is not circular reasoning. Well, you know what I mean.
Substitute "circle" and "roundness" with "God" and "goodness" and maybe you'll begin to understand.
Comment