Assuming Facts Not In Evidence

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 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. Without Divine revelation, neither logic nor math can be known. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Assuming facts not in evidence 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.

Assuming Facts Not In Evidence occurs when premises are based on assumptions rather than something solid. It is very common to claim that there is evidence when what is called, “evidence,” is actually an interpretation of evidence. In other words, something is observed or experienced, and then assumptions are made to interpret the actual evidence. The interpretation is then labeled “evidence.” However, the supposed “evidence” is not really evidence. Another way this works is to simply make up facts without any observation, experience, or any such thing.

The most basic ways to inject facts that are not in evidence are through infinite regression, circular reasoning, or assumption. Agrippa's Trilemma will assure that every argument against God, against the Bible, and against the history of the Bible will be based on either infinite regression, circular reasoning, or arbitrary assumptions that are taken as axioms. In other words, such arguments must be logical proof by fallacy. Fallacies can be very deceiving and hard to discover, but the fallacies will be there. And it doesn't matter whether the attacks come from an angry man like Dawkins or a rocker like Gungor, the fallacies will be the bases. Agrippa's Trilemma assures this to be true.

Example of Assuming Facts Not In Evidence

Sandra: “I know that the Earth is billions of years old. It is a known fact.”

Roxanne: “Every so-called ‘evidence’ for billions of years is actually just an interpretation based on assumptions. If you take away the assumptions, the so-called ‘evidence’ disappears.”

Sandra: “All real scientists believe that the Earth is billions of years old. They can show evidence.”

Roxanne: “Have you seen this evidence? If so, can you show it to me?”

Sandra: "I haven’t actually seen any evidence, but I assume that the scientists know what they’re talking about.”

Roxanne: “Wouldn't you need to see some evidence? My evidence, which I have observed, is that the Holy Spirit leads me moment by moment, and the Holy Spirit indicates to me that the Bible is the Word of God without error. And the Holy Spirit speaks to me through the Bible and tells me that God created the Heavens and the Earth, and that about 6,000 years ago, God created Adam and Eve, from whom come all human being. It is possible that God did something that we don't know about that doesn't conflict with what He is saying through Genesis 1, but I would have to see some evidence to believe such a thing.”

Assumptions happen subtly. It is never valid reasoning to base logic on assumptions. Assumptions are made-up stuff. A famous evolutionist pointed out the problem with people who don't believe in evolutionism. They don't have good imaginations.

Bill Nye arguing against Creation science: "we’ve invented the science of astronomy. We’ve invented life science. We’ve invented physics. We’ve discovered these natural laws, so that we can learn more about our origin and where we came from."

There is no fact in evidence that human beings invented these things rather than God revealing these things to humans.