Proving a Premise from a Conclusion Fallacy

Proving a premise from a conclusion 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 Proving a Premise from a Conclusion Fallacy occurs when a premise is claimed to be true because the conclusion is true. The conclusions may be true or it may seem to be true. That conclusion is used to demonstrate that one of the premises is true, but the premise is not necessarily true.

Examples of the Proving a Premise from a Conclusion Fallacy

“We know that natural selection takes place because evolution produces small changes that add up into bigger changes and then natural selection gets rid of the less fit.”

The conclusion is that natural selection takes place. Few would argue. However, the conclusion is being used to prove the premise about molecules-to-man evolutionism, which is very debatable.