What Else Could Explain it? / TINA / There Is No Alternative Fallacy

No alternative fallacy 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 What Else Could Explain it? / TINA / There Is No Alternative Fallacy occurs when only one alternative is claimed but at least one other alternative exists.

Examples of the What Else Could Explain it? / TINA / There Is No Alternative Fallacy

Bill Nye, arguing against Creation science: "In other words, the explanation provided by Evolution made a prediction, and the prediction’s extraordinary and subtle, but there it is. How else would you explain it?" [The context is the discovery of Tiktaalik, which has been shown to be a non-transitional-form.]

Here, Bill gives one choice and then asks a rhetorical question as proof. However, there is a very good second choice that makes a lot more sense than a story that violates several scientific laws, requires several ad hoc hypotheses, and requires many assumptions. God created these fish and gave them this ability to adapt. It is built into them by their Creator God. This second option violated no scientific laws and requires no ad hoc hypothesis or assumption. We happen to have absolute evidence that God did create them. We know this by Divine revelation.

Tiktaalik was touted as a transitional form between fish and four-footed land animals. However, it was dated, using secular assumptions, to be younger than other foot prints of four-footed animals. There are no indisputable transitional forms between families of living things.

The logical fallacy of affirming the consequent consists of saying, "If A is true, we would expect B. We find B. Therefore, A is true." This is obviously a fallacy. Consider this logic. If there was a giant spray-painting monster, we would expect to find spray paint on buildings from time to time. We find spray paint on building from time to time. Therefore, there is a giant spray-painting monster.