回应'这是循环论证'

核心论证 Core Argument

循环论证的指控是对前设护教学最常见的误解。巴恩森和弗雷姆都详细回应了这一批评。首先，必须区分恶性循环(vicious circularity)和良性循环(non-vicious circularity)。恶性循环是用A来证明B，再用B来证明A，这在逻辑上是无效的。但前设护教学使用的是先验论证(transcendental argument)，其结构是：证明某个命题是其他一切知识和推理的必要前提条件。当我们论证上帝的存在是逻辑本身的前提条件时，我们不是在循环推理，而是在显明：如果否认上帝存在，连批评者用来批评我们的逻辑工具本身都无法存在。弗雷姆指出，任何终极标准的论证都会涉及某种「循环性」，因为终极标准无法被更高的标准来验证。感官经验主义者用感官经验来证明感官经验的可靠性，理性主义者用理性来证明理性的权威性，这些都涉及「循环」。关键问题不是是否涉及循环，而是哪种世界观能够为这种循环提供一致性的解释。只有基督教能够解释为什么我们的理性能力和感官能力都是可靠的。

The charge of circular reasoning is the most common misunderstanding of presuppositional apologetics. Bahnsen and Frame have both addressed this criticism in detail. First, we must distinguish between vicious circularity and non-vicious circularity. Vicious circularity uses A to prove B, then B to prove A, which is logically invalid. But presuppositionalism uses transcendental argument, whose structure proves that a certain proposition is the necessary precondition for all other knowledge and reasoning. When we argue that God's existence is the precondition for logic itself, we are not reasoning circularly but showing that if one denies God's existence, even the logical tools the critic uses to criticize us could not exist.