| Proving Too Much |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Fallacies of Non Sequitur
>
Proving Too Much
|
Proving Too Much FallacyThe logical fallacy of proving too much is a mistake that is made when trying to cover up the fact that 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 Proving Too Much Fallacy occurs when a premise is used that, if the premise were valid, could be used more generally to reach an absurd conclusion. Examples of the Proving Too Much FallacyHenry Coppee made the point that the logic in Elements of Rhetoric, "slavery is evil because a master beats a slave to death," is proving too much because it can be extended to cover other good things. It could be used to say that marriage is evil because one man beats his wife, or it could be used to say that parenthood is evil because one person abuses his/her children. There are other reasons that there should be no slavery. This is not one of them. An Atheist claims that "reason" and "science" ought to replace "religion." By religion, the Atheist means God and Divine revelation. The problem with this argument is that it eliminates both reason and science and brings us into a land of make-believe. Agrippa's Trilemma destroys all secular thinking. You may know Agrappa's Trilemma as Münchhausen Trilemma or Albert's Trilemma. If a naturalistic presupposition is any part of the foundation of thought, then Agrippa's Trilemma is in force. A chain of thought is as strong as its weakest link. This chain must begin with something that is absolute, but all that is available is infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. Therefore, science and reason are eliminated if Divine revelation is eliminated.
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionNon Sequitur Sherlock Holmes Fallacy Availability Heuristic Blind Men and an Elephant Counter-Induction Idola Fori Idola Theatri Idola Specus Idola Tribus Loki\'s Wager Greek Math It Could Be Worse It Could Be Better Retrogressive Causation Alternative Syllogism Golden Hammer Exception That Proves the Rule Fallacy Selling the Defect Ignorance of Refutation Proving a Premise from a Conclusion Recently Viewed |
