Logical Fallacy of Argument from Personal Astonishment

The argument from personal astonishment is a smokescreen. 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 argument from personal astonishment 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.

Logical Fallacy of Argument from Personal Astonishment occurs what wonder and astonishment is expressed as a reason to reject a proposition.

Argument from personal astonishment is not always an act. It is often very sincere. When exposed to truth that is outside of one's own worldview, the effect is that the truth seems weird and unreal. Argument from personal astonishment is one of the many ways that Agrippa's Trilemma operates. Agrippa's Trilemma will assure that every argument against God, against the Bible, and against the history of the Bible will be based on either infinite regression, circular reasoning, or arbitrary assumptions that are taken as axioms. In other words, such arguments must be logical proof by fallacy. Fallacies can be very deceiving and hard to discover, but the fallacies will be there. And it doesn't matter whether the attacks come from an angry man like Dawkins or a rocker like Gungor, the fallacies will be the bases. Agrippa's Trilemma assures this to be true.

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Argument from Personal Astonishment

Bill Nye arguing against Creation Science: “Ken Ham and his followers have this remarkable view of a worldwide flood that somehow influenced everything that we see in nature.”

Bill Nye arguing against Creation Science: “Billions of people, but these same people do not embrace the ‘extraordinary’ view that the Earth is ‘somehow’ only 6,000 years old.”

Bill Nye arguing against Creation Science: “How would these things have settled out? Your claim that they settled out in an extraordinarily short amount of time is, for me, not satisfactory.”

In addition to the words, remarkable and somehow, Bill used the word, "extraordinary," upwards of 20 times as the evidence for his assertions against the history recorded in Scripture.