Logical Fallacy of Affirming a Disjunct / Fallacy of the Alternative Disjunct / False Exclusionary Disjunct / Affirming One Disjunct / Logical Fallacy of the Alternative Syllogism / Asserting an Alternative / Improper Disjunctive Syllogism / Fallacy of the Disjunctive Syllogism

Affirming the disjunct is a formal fallacy that covers up the problem when 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 logical fallacy of affirming the disjunct occurs when it is assumed that if one of two options is true then the other must be false. This only applies when the or is not an exclusive or.

Major Premise: "A or B."

Minor Premise: "A."

Conclusion: "Therefore not B."

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Affirming a Disjunct / Fallacy of the Alternative Disjunct / False Exclusionary Disjunct / Affirming One Disjunct / Logical Fallacy of the Alternative Syllogism / Asserting an Alternative / Improper Disjunctive Syllogism / Fallacy of the Disjunctive Syllogism

"Christians have to decide whether they are going to keep themselves pure from sin or love their neighbors."

"They must love their neighbors."

"Therefore, they don't need to keep themselves pure."

Loving our neighbors is part of keeping ourselves pure. The two terms are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are dependent on each other, so this is an example of the logical fallacy of affirming the disjunct.

"God gave us a mind to use, or are we going to look to God for revelation?"

"We must use the mind God gave us."

"Therefore, we don't look to God for revelation."

Using our minds and receiving God's revelation are not mutually exclusive, so this is another example of the logical fallacy of the logical fallacy of affirming the disjunct.

"In fact, God created the human mind to be joined to Him. It doesn't work properly unless this is accomplished. The walk in the Spirit is one of allowing the Holy Spirit to fully form Christ in our minds and to die to the fleshly natural mind that is deceitful and desperately wicked."

Example of a mutually exclusive choice.

"We either have higher heights available in Christ, or we have totally fulfilled all that He had planned for us."

"We do have higher heights in Christ."

"Therefore, we have not fulfilled all that He had planned for us."

This is sound reasoning because it is an exclusive or.