Just World Hypothesis

The just world hypothesis 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 Just World Hypothesis occurs when an assumption is made that the world is just and what happens to us is justice--according to our own definitions of "just" and "justice." This is a statistical fallacy of looking at a small sample of the eternal continuum. Ultimately, there is justice. We know that by Divine revelation. However, there is much injustice along the way, so someone who does good may have some very bad experiences.

Examples of the Just World Hypothesis

"Jim must not be walking right. God is judging him. See! He lost his job. Last week, he was swindled out of his business."

There are many other reasons that God allows problems to come into our lives. One is to test us and prepare us of coming responsibility.

"Why would God allow injustice?"

God does have His reasons. We may not always understand it, but He has a different viewpoint than we have. He can see across the ages, the end from the beginning. He knows everything that is going on and what it is going to take to finish the project.