Package Deal Fallacy

The package deal fallacy is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. 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 regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. There is no reason to trust either logic or math without Divine revelation. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma.

The package deal fallacy occurs when things that are not necessarily connected are joined with a word such as “and” or a different technique of language. Sometimes these are totally different things or concepts, and sometimes these may be things or concepts that are often seen together but are not really associated with each other. It can be a way of creating a halo effect fallacy, where one concept or thing reflects on another concept or thing.

Examples of the Package Deal Fallacy:

Bill Nye, debating against Biblical Creation: "So it’s reasonable to me that instead of lions being vegetarians on the Ark, lions are lions and the information that you use to create your worldview is not consistent with what I as a reasonable man would expect." 

When Bill uses the word, “and,” he is using it to connect two thoughts, implying that they make sense together, that they have a relationship. In fact, the relationship between the two statements is only that neither one is true. One doesn't prove the other. These thoughts are not dependent on each other. They don’t make sense together.

Here is the logic:

The cat kind on the Ark consisted of lions. (unsupported assertion by innuendo).

These lions on the Ark were necessarily carnivores because all animals with sharp teeth are always carnivores. (assertion contrary to fact).

and (package deal fallacy)

a sane person would not believe the Bible (assertion contrary to fact).

Bill Nye, debating against Biblical Creation: "explain to us why we should accept your word for it that natural law changed just 4,000 years ago, completely, and there’s no record of it. You know, there are pyramids that are older than that. There are human populations that are far older than that, with traditions that go back farther than that. And it’s just not reasonable to me that everything changed 4,000 years ago, by everything, I mean species, the surface of the Earth, the stars in the sky, and the relationship of all the other living things on Earth to humans."

There are pyramids older than 4,000 years (unsupported assertion), AND it isn't reasonable that EVERYTHING changed 4,000 years ago (strawman fallacy). The only reason to link these two would be if they were in a sentence that began, "The following are two fallacies: "