Equating Opposites

The equating opposites 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 logical fallacy of equating opposites / ignoring differences occurs when an argument is made that two opposites are the same thing. One of the ways this is done is by substituting nonessential characteristics for their essential characteristics until all differences are obliterated. Another way that this is done is by denying or ignoring differences. See the fallacy of false analogy. This fallacy can be committed in a metaphor, a simile, an allegory, an analogy, an innuendo, or by making a plain statement of equality. 

Examples of Equating Opposites

Rocky:"The Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story is based on assumptions. Your belief in it is based on what you assume to be true. I know Jesus Christ personally. He is the One who reveals to me that the Bible is His Word, without error. He speaks through the Bible. It is impossible to read the Bible without Him speaking. Some people refuse to acknowledge Him and will not hear His Voice. Through the Bible, God reveals that this story that you believe, based on your assumptions, is a false story. It comes down to Divine revelation versus human arbitrary assumption."

Sandy: "When you say Christ reveals things to you, that is the same as when I say I assume."

What Sandy is saying is that the flesh (assumption) is the same as the Holy Spirit (Divine revelation. God reveals the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other. They are opposites. Of course, Sandy makes this unsupported assertion based on an Atheistic worldview, a fake-reality that seems to Sandy to be more real than reality itself.

Sandy: "I see no differentiation between an assumption and a premise. Premises must be true. Therefore, my assumptions are true and can be used as proof for my conclusion."

This line of reasoning mixes some things that can't logically be mixed. Premises must be true for logic to be sound. Some logicians don't include proving that the premises are true as part of the process of logic. They just assume the premises to be true. However, premises are often false. Assumptions are arbitrary. They are things that are believed to be true without any evidence. If premises are false, then the logic is not sound, and the conclusion cannot be shown to be true (though it might be true).