
A common criticism I see online is that someones worldview, or philosophy for life, is circular. It is considered a negative point when someones opinion of how things work backs itself up against any questions.
An example of a circular argument that would annoy an atheist might go something like:
"There is a God, who is beyond our understanding."
"Can you prove that?"
"Not conclusively, no, because he is beyond our understanding."
It is obvious that a circular argument can be annoying, but I do not think this refutes it. Other than circular, there is only one other form that a worldview can be, and I do not think it is necesserily superior. The other form is incomplete.




