Appeal to false faith 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 regression, 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. Without Divine revelation, neither logic nor math can be known. 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 appeal to faith occurs when someone uses make-believe faith (not the same as biblical faith) as a premise to support a conclusion rather than using true premises. It is a misuse of biblical faith, which is legitimate. Biblical faith comes by hearing the word (Greek: rhema = utterance) of God. When God speaks and we acknowledge Him, biblical faith comes. So there is ample room for equivocation on the word, faith, since the same word is used for both make-believe and God's imparted faith.

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to False Faith / Appeal to Make-Believe

Sandy: "I believe that science is the best way to know anything."

Roxanne: "What is your evidence of that."

Sandy: "I know it's true, I just can't explain why it's true."

Sandy is committing the logical fallacy of appeal to faith. Generally, a conversation like this will result in Sandy using every other fallacy to defend his position before letting it out of the bag that he is depending of faith, since people who believe in the self-refuting philosophy of scientism use the word faith as a weapon against anyone who knows Jesus Christ, as well as those who follow earth spirits or have rationalized faith in some sort of god. In fact, Sandy would probably rather cut off communication than admit that he is committing the fallacy of appeal to faith.

Rocky: "I believe that God created the Heavens and the Earth and everything in them in six days."

Sandy: "What is your evidence of that."

Rocky: "I don't need any evidence. I take it on faith."

It is possible to have real faith and to fail to give God the glory for it. Rocky is speaking of a rationalized faith here; however, he may also have real faith. He may actually know Jesus and have a relationship with Him. In today's society, Rocky should have realized that he was being challenged by a skeptic. The skeptic would probably have a specifically cynical definition of faith meaning make-believe rather than biblical faith. Rocky's answer allows equivocation on the word, faith. He would have been better off answering the question with something like this: "My evidence is that God tells me this and I believe God." Now, Sandy can answer Rocky and tell Rocky that he isn't experiencing what he is experiencing, but Sandy can only do this by being irrational.

Sandy: "That's not very scientific."

Rocky: "Are you defining science as naturalistic science?"

Sandy: "There is no other kind of science."

Rocky: "What makes you think that naturalism is part of reality?"

Sandy: "It is an axiom of science."

Sandy has a make-believe faith in naturalism and is committing the fallacy of appeal to faith/make-believe. An axiom is an assumption that someone pretends is not an assumption.

Sandy: "To believe in God is above reason and logic. To use faith to justify a conclusion is the absence of reason."

Rocky: "True faith in God comes by God speaking and imparting His supernatural belief and trust into a human being. It's an ongoing experience that I have. God explains many things to me in a reasonable way, but things that the natural senses can't detect, like the history of the Universe or some details of the spiritual realm."

Sandy: "God can't speak. He doesn't exist."

Rocky: "What makes you think so."

Sandy: "I know so. There is no need to discuss it further. That's final!"

Sandy has a make-believe faith in the tenets of Atheism and has committed the fallacy of appeal to make-believe/appeal to faith. He uses summary dismissal because he would rather break off the discussion than to admit that he is making it all up, though. Atheists use this logic: Any faith is make-believe faith; therefore, any faith is make-believe faith, except for their own make-believe faith. They exclude themselves. Otherwise their own comments would be disqualified since they are made-up stuff.