Circular reasoning

I've been reading this a little. I think get why there's so much arguing and angry words.Pauline claims that the bible supporting god's ultimate authority because he beliefs the bible is divine, and written by god. This may seem circular, but he remedies it by his belief in evidence that it's true.(such as prophecies coming true, etc). Atheists and agnostics do not believe in this evidence, and as a result, in their view, the reasoning becomes circular.As is already becoming apparent, the evidence is IN DISPUTE. And it depends on the evidence if the reasoning is circular or not. For discussion about evidence: check all the topics.Criticism about circular reasoning is FUTILE, unless you happen to convince them that their evidence is false, or you let them be because a person just believes himself that the evidence is false.It's all very subjective. As I noted in this topic, for this reason, reasoning about circular reasoning tends to once again go in wel... circles using evidence are arguments, because everyone has different views about positive evidence, and refuting evidence.As for me: I am a Christian with heavy doubts and agnostic tendencies, so eh... I haven't worked it out. I do believe the general scientific opinions, so at the moment I am quite in a hassle. I do still believe, but science tend to have evidence, or at least logical rational theories about stuff based on evidence. But that's my personal view and besides the point.EDIT: by the way, if you use ''we know nothing 100%, even that the sky is blue is only 99,99% sure'' logic , even something simple as that could be accused to be a very tiny little bit circular. Just to drive the point home. But generally, logic becomes more or less circular depending on the evidence, so no one actively questions the sky colour for long.Edited by WSW24, : adding thingsEdited by WSW24, : No reason given.Edited by WSW24, : No reason given.