Logical Fallacy of Magician's Choice / Closer's Choice / Fallacy of False Alternatives / Fallacy of False Choice / The Fallacy of Exhaustive Hypothesis / Alternative Advance / Lose-Lose Situation

Magician's choice 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 logical fallacy of magician's choice / closer's choice / fallacy of false alternatives / fallacy of false choice / the fallacy of exhaustive hypothesis / alternative advance / lose-lose situation occurs when a certain number of choices are implied, but either more or less choices are available. You are given limited choices when there are other choices available. Often those choices take the lose-lose form.

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Magician's Choice / Closer's Choice / Fallacy of False Alternatives / Fallacy of False Choice / The Fallacy of Exhaustive Hypothesis / Alternative Advance / Lose-Lose Situation

"Heads I win. Tails, you lose."

Bill Nye gave a long talk about one of the huge problems with the molecules-to-man story, then ended by saying that the thing that makes the molecules-to-man story appear to be impossible is actually a confirmation of the story and an example of a prediction that Darwin's story would make. Then, he ends with this magician's question: "How else would you explain it?"

The magician's choice is usually given as a false choice given between two things when a third possibility exists. However, it could be any number. Bill presents the single choice option. Not only that, but the answer is simple. It would be explained as exactly what we would predict with the creation model. This very issue has been a problem for the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story believers for a long time. Bill just told a little story to explain away the evidence. It doesn't really answer the question, though. (see article) If someone can think of a way to explain some observation in a way that doesn't refute the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story, this doesn't prove the story. (This video gives some detail concerning the problem.) Bill's story certainly is not a scientific prediction that validates the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story or that refutes any of the things that make the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story a scientific impossibility.