# Stunning Usage of Circular Reasoning (Torah Denialism Debunk)

#### Published on Iyar 17, 5781

I recently had a discussion with someone on Reddit who attempted to convince me that the video, mentioned below, is wrong. He, of course, failed.
In the video “Math Unveils the Truth: Torah is of Divine Origin,” even without knowledge of statistical analysis, one can verify the findings by going to a website to calculate the correlation line and coefficient. All you must do is repeat the calculations in the video, and see that they’re correct. You shouldn’t trust me, so try it! I still don’t understand how a correlation coefficient is calculated, but I know how to use an online calculator website.
Anyway, let’s get onto the main debunk! Let’s also keep count of each instance of circular reasoning and arguments by assertion. Notice how Brandolini’s Law is requiring me to spend much time, throughout many paragraphs, just to debunk someone’s comment thread on Reddit.
The first comment of interest says “Lol, I’ve watched both of the links you sent me (although it was actually the same link I posted, just twice, accidentally) and they are absolute jokes. Interesting at most, but DO NOT qualify as proof. I really don’t think you fully grasp what that word means tbh. But I guess we can be done here, cause it’s really hard to have a conversation with someone so far removed from reality.” That comment alone contains at least three instances of circular reasoning. They are in the first, second, and fourth sentences. The comment can be summed up in two words: “You’re wrong”, which is by the way, objectively false.
I asked the commenter to demonstrate that the findings are wrong, and the response was as follows: “Findings? Hahah you’re hilarious. I’ve told you, go look up the definition of evidence, which you clearly don’t understand. The only findings indicate there’s no such thing as a higher power, and religion is nothing but malicious gibberish. But you can’t seem to compute that, which is just… sad.” I love how he mentions findings that show that a higher power doesn’t exist, and yet doesn’t link them[Note 1]. That would be like me saying to an atheist friend “Evidence suggests that there is a G-d, but you don’t seem to get it!” and moving on without ever mentioning the supposed evidence. Anyway, he says I can’t seem to compute that, even though I shouldn’t be expected to “compute” findings that may not exist, be relevant, or be valid, and that I have no knowledge of. The existence of such findings is just an argument by assertion.
The next comment is where he starts using what I call the “Brainwash Gambit”, which is where someone is asserted to be brainwashed, usually without reason, which has nothing to do with whether or not they’re wrong, as someone may be taught that the Earth is round in a brainwashing manner. This is an appeal to bias, which is a subset of argumentum ad hominem. If being brainwashed is defined as being taught something that is wrong, which I believe is how the commenter would define it, it is instead circular reasoning. The comment is as follows: “They aren’t findings, dear. That’s desperately trying to apply some sense into absolute gibberish, bordering on conspiracy. Are you young, or just brainwashed? Or did the school system fail you? Cause you truly have a hard time with basic definitions. There’s no scientific evidence to back a religious claim - that’s just a fact.” The first, second, third, as explained previously, and sixth sentences contain circular reasoning, the sixth having two instances of it. You may have noticed that no attempt has even been made to disprove the findings in the video yet, and most of this person’s comments focus on irrelevant details.
I ask him to disprove the findings, and he merely continues the arguments by assertion, plus a new red herring. The comment is as follows: “There was a pathetic attempt at mathematical proof. You can stick numbers into anything and call it “evidence”. It’s very simple actually - can you call your G-d? Can you prove in any way, shape or form that he exists? Can you scientifically prove that any of the bible is true? As in, actual physical proof? No, you can’t. No one can - so that’s that. That’s all the evidence you need that it’s gibberish.” Prayer (tefila) is considered “calling” Hashem, so yes, I can actually “call” him. Even if I couldn’t pray, it would still be possible to show evidence of the divinity of the Torah. I am NOT a creationist, but can you actually call the original amino acids from which the first protein came? No? That means that ALL evidence for abiogenesis is invalid, because you cannot call the original amino acids via telephone. We don’t even have physical remains of abiogenesis, so therefore it didn’t happen. That is clearly fallacious. The comment also suggests that before the telephone was invented, evidence was impossible to obtain, meaning that Charles Darwin, who discovered evolution prior to the invention of the telephone, had no justification for evolution. Also, the first sentence in the comment is another argument by assertion.
The response to my next comment was as follows: “Haha no, it’s not irrelevant, it proves my point that you don’t have any evidence to its existence. Seriously, calm down, go read a book or two, think about thinks clearly... :) and the “findings” are pathetic because they prove N O T H I N G. Seriously, you can’t be arrogant[Note 2] enough to claim you gave physical proof your made-up G-d exists.” There is a discussion in the comments section of the original video between me and the video publisher about how the findings are evidence for Hashem. The first and second comments contain arguments by assertion and the way that he describes Hashem as “made-up” in the final sentence is also circular reasoning, increasing the counter by three.
I am skipping several comments in which he acts as if the only reason I accept the divinity of the Torah is because he Torah says it’s divine, despite the demonstrable findings which he soon begins denying. I am also skipping some of his denial comments.
After I ask for at least the second time to disprove the findings, the response is as follows: “They 👏🏻 aren’t 👏🏻 findings! 👏🏻[Note 3] you obviously don’t know what that word means so you should stop using it. It’s just a dude saying something[Note 4]. Go ahead - prove to me that G-d is real. Do it. YOU CANNOT. It’s not a thing. Seriously, for your own sake, try to be more aware of things you say, this is embarrassing.” The first sentence is another blatant argument by assertion. The second sentence is also implying that the findings aren’t demonstrable, even though they are. He then asks for me to prove G-d is real, even though the findings are evidence of Hashem.
The next comment is as follows: “You can create an equation that comes up with any result you want - that’s not evidence... that’s man-made attempt at logic. For real, I would normally ignore someone like you but your stubbornness at ignorance is outstanding[Note 2, again]. You give us Jews a bad rep, you know? It’s really shameful[Note 5] and you should at least understand how to differentiate your own opinion from a fact. You religious lot are really something…” The calculations show that Hebrew words correlate with scientific values, and are pretty simple, so they can’t get “any result I want.” I am also not a Jew, and in a later comment he says he is not surprised, saying it in a condescending way, even though being part of the 99.8% of the world population is not shameful. The first two sentences, though misrepresenting the findings, contain circular reasoning.
His next comment is in response to my request to show how the math is wrong. I asked for his BEST argument. Let’s see how good it is… It goes as follows: “I HAVE! Like 10 times now - you just chose to ignore it!!! A RANDOM GUY COMING UP WITH A RANDOM EQUATION AND MAKING A VIDEO ABOUT IT IS NOT EVIDENCE!!! There’s no science to back it up! Proper science, that is! Anyone can say anything they want - it doesn’t make it a fact. The math is random, the man is talking gibberish[Note 6] and crafts his arguments to fit into his logic. That’s IT!” The calculations are simple, and applied to a wide range of phenomena, so they cannot get any desired result. There is science to back it up, if you count math as science, and the video shows demonstrably correct calculations. The narrator isn’t “talking gibberish”, but detailing the calculations. The third, fourth, seventh, and eighth sentences use circular reasoning. I will stop here, because I just debunked what he says is his BEST argument. In total, if I am correct, there were 18 instances of circular reasoning throughout those several comments!

## Notes

1: Weasel word(s).
2: Psychological projection.