Logical Fallacy of Invalid form using "OR" / Confusing "Inclusive Or" with "Exclusive Or"

Invalid form using "or" 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 Invalid form using "Or" / Confusing "Inclusive Or" with "Exclusive Or"occurs when an inclusive or is confused with an exclusive "Or." Another way to state this is that it occurs when an "or" changes its meaning to "exclusive or" during the process of reasoning.

Invalid Form:

"A or B."
"A."
"Therefore, not B." (invalid form)

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Invalid form using "OR" / Confusing "Inclusive Or" with "Exclusive Or"

"Christ either speaks through Scripture or through some other means. Christ speaks through Scripure. Therefore, Christ doesn't speak through any other means."

This is what is known as an inclusive or--both choices can be true. For this reason the logical argument is invalid.

Bill Nye, arguing against Creation Science: “There is a large variety of skulls shapes or God created Adam and Eve and everyone descended from them. There is a large variety of skull shapes. Therefore, God didn’t create Adam and Eve and everyone did not descend from them.”

Bill didn’t state this logic plainly as this example paraphrases it. He used innuendo. If Bill could have proven an exclusive or for this statement, then he could have avoided this fallacy.