Argument from Omniscience

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. Argument from omniscience, a form of axiomatic thinking, is one of these three unhappy possibilities.

Argument from Omniscience occurs when a claim is made that could not possibly be known. The reason this is a fallacy is that only God is omniscient. Often these arguments from omniscience take the form of a universal negative. It would be an argument from omniscience to claim that the omniscient God of the Universe cannot reveal things that cannot be known by any other means.

Examples of the Argument from Omniscience

“We know that evolution [meaning molecules-to-man] happened.”

This is a statement about the past that cannot be observed, making the claim an argument from omniscience.

“Naturalism [another word for Atheism] is necessary for science.”

This statement is, or something similar to it, is taught in public schools throughout the world. Naturalism is the claim that there is no spiritual realm. A claim like that would require omniscience. Naturalism provides no cause for the regularity of nature. The Bible tells us that Jesus Christ is the cause. If scientists really believed that there is no cause for the regularity of science, then they could not know that everything won't change tomorrow. Atheism is a claim that would require omniscience. Anyone who says that God doesn't exist is claiming to be omniscient. There are other fallacies here. Anyone making this claim is ignoring the obvious evidence. When challenged to actually look at the evidence, to actually seek God and find Him, most of them refuse to do it or do it insincerely, without repentance, or with no desire to leave sin behind them. Most branches of science were established by people who didn't accept the arbitrary assumption of Naturalism.

Fallacy Abuse

Roxanne: "Every person is aware of God, but some people refuse to acknowledge Him."

Sandra: "You're claiming to be omniscient. You can't look into my mind. I really don't believe in God."

Roxanne: "Christ reveals that those who love darkness are the ones who won’t come to the Light, Who is to Jesus. Christ reveals that those who label themselves as Atheists know that God exists but that they refuse to acknowledge Him. For someone to claim that they know something about history that is in conflict with what God is telling us through Scripture is an argument from omniscience fallacy. Bill Nye even claimed to be able to go back in time. To claim that God can't, or doesn't, reveal things to His people is to claim to know the inner spiritual experience of every person who has ever lived. God knows that, but I doubt that you know that."