Logical Fallacy of Proof by Implied Unsupported Assertion / Implied Lie

Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regression, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known; however, that is not true. Without Divine revelation, neither logic nor math can be known. Science is limited only to pragmatic thinking because of the weakness of human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Proof by implied unsupported assertion, a form of axiomatic thinking, is one of these three unhappy possibilities.

The logical fallacy of proof by implied unsupported assertion or implied lie occurs when making the false or unsupported assertion directly would be unacceptable, but making it by innuendo allows a way out if called on the tactic. It is a form of hedging. By using innuendo, it is possible to sometimes tell a very bold outright lie without being detected.

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Implied Unsupported Assertion / Implied Lie

Bill Nye: "Ken Ham and his followers have this remarkable view of a worldwide flood that somehow influenced everything that we see in nature."

This was a verbal tactic, a logical fallacy of proof by implied unsupported assertion or implied assertion contrary to fact (outright lie), that Bill Nye wove into his messages throughout his 2014 debate with Ken Ham. This is a nested fallacy, stacking more than one fallacy in only a few words, a practice that makes it more difficult to sort out the fallacy. The phrase, "Ken Ham and his followers," repeated in various forms throughout the debate, has the purpose of painting anyone who believes what God says through the Bible as being a very small band of renegades who are following Ken Ham. It paints Ken Ham as a cult leader. This is very nuanced, so it creates the impression without raising resistance. When combined with another, more outrageous, lie, this lie will tend to be accepted without conscious evaluation by many. And if anyone calls Bill out on this, he will simply deny that this was his intent, because he has used hedging. The phrase, "this remarkable view," gives the impression of weirdness to the view that there was a worldwide flood, something that is very difficult to miss in geology. Again, this is all by innuendo rather than direct statement. You would be much more likely to catch the fallacy if Bill were to say, "It is weird to think that there was a flood!" The same would be true if Bill had said, "There is no evidence for the Genesis flood." The evidence for this flood is overwhelming. The remarkable view is the currently held paradigm that the flood didn't occur and that the sedimentary rocks were somehow formed over vast quantities of time. This was followed by a straw man fallacy in the phrase, "of a worldwide flood that somehow influenced everything that we see in nature," is an outright lie that is stated presumptively. Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of extension, that is, exaggerating in order to make the Biblical account seem to be absurd. You can't tell it yet, since Bill very cleverly planted the seeds of his arguments early in these very vague terms. Later in the debate, he continues to build on the same idea until he finally (much later in the debate) says that the Bible claims that the flood affected the stars. This is an amazing stretch, even for Bill Nye.