It’s no more a circular argument than to say you clicked the send button because you wanted to reply to my comment, and you wanted to reply to my comment because you hit the send button.
How does naturalistic science explain the existence of language?
(It cannot and is therefore insufficient to explain ultimate reality.)
How can the tomb have been empty if there was no resurrection?
Why would the disciples change from depressed and hopeless in the days immediately after the crucifixion to suddenly being inspired to live a life of poverty, torture and solitary execution?
Why would the enemy, Saul of Tarsus, convert?
Why would skeptics like James convert?
How could a religion explode from a handful of followers to many thousands within the space of just a few years, in the face of relentless and murderous persecution by the Roman government?
How does naturalistic science explain the existence of language?
If a question like this seems to threaten the integrity of a particular viewpoint or perspective, perhaps the perspective itself should be questioned.