| Claim of Unknowables |
Claim of Unknowables FallacyWhenever 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. Claim of unknowables, a form of axiomatic thinking, is one of these three unhappy possibilities. The Claim of Unknowables Fallacy occurs when it is claimed that something or someone is universally unknowable. The reason that it is a fallacy to claim that no one can know something is that, unless God has revealed that no one knows the thing, it would require the person making the claim to know what everyone who has ever lived, or anyone who could possibly live, knows. This is way beyond mind-reading. What process would you use to find out what everyone knows or has known or could know? The exception, of course, is Divine revelation. We know, for instance, that no one other than the Father knows the day and the hour of the end. Examples of the Claim of Unknowables Fallacy
Bill has correctly defined the philosophy of Agnosticism as originally coined by T.H. Huxley. It is not a statement of lack of knowledge. It is a statement that claims infinite knowledge of a specific kind. It claims to know the inner spiritual experiences of every person who has ever lived. It claims to know that every person who has ever claimed to have a personal experience with Christ, to be led by Him, to be taught by Him, to be comforted by Him, to have sensed Him in many ways; it is a claim that every one of these people is lying, deceived in some way, or crazy. Bill Nye is claiming to know all about this. Wouldn’t you like to ask him to demonstrate the method by which he has such amazing familiarity?
In reality, those who believe in no-God are actually taught to avoid disclosing their position. What Sandra would be more likely to do is to try to ask question after question of Roxanne, looking for something where Roxanne can’t answer. By using this tactic, Sandra is committing the failure to state, argument from ignorance, and shotgun fallacies. 
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionIpse Dixit Unsupported Assertion Secret Knowledge Allness Fallacy Autistic Certainty Lie Big Lie Outright Lie Bold-Faced Lie Appeal to Confidence Hypothesis Contrary to Fact False Prophecy Argument to the Future Escape Via Ignorance Argumentum Ex Culo Blind Authority False Accusation Argument from Omniscience Universal Negative As Far As Anyone Knows Proving a Negative Presupposition Irrelevant Purpose Propositional Fallacy Thompson Invisibility Syndrome Presumption Grammatical Presupposition Arbitrary Thinking Reversible Logic Floating Abstraction Implied Lie Spiritual Fallacy Feigned Powerlessness Pious Fraud False Open-Mindedness Recently Viewed |
