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. Argument by personal incredulity (or conviction) 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.

The logical fallacy of argument from personal incredulity / personal belief / personal conviction occurs either when it is asserted that lack of belief makes something untrue or when it is asserted that personal belief proves that something is true.

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Argument from Personal Incredulity / Personal Belief / Personal Conviction

Sandy: "You cannot prove to me that God exists, so I have to assume that He doesn't exist."

Rocky: "You can't prove that the Sun exists to a person who is determined not to know it. God reveals that you know He exists because He has made Himself plain through the things that He has created. And, you can verify Jesus Christ to yourself, since everyone who seeks Him in sincerity with a desire to know Him and to obey Him, who comes with humility to Him--every person who does that finds Him. One other point: your personal beliefs don't have any impact on reality."

Sandy is really hiding out in what he considers to be a safe place. It is common for people who love a certain fallacy to resort to "Prove it or it's not true" fallacies.

Bill Nye, on creation versus evolution: "This is to say, nature has its mediocre designs eaten by its good designs and so, the perception that there’s a designer that created all this is not necessarily true because we have an explanation that is far more compelling"

Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of personification. He is personifying nature, giving it the ability to design things. Bill Nye is also using the logical fallacy of personal conviction as proof. The fact that he believes, and that his followers (if I may borrow the expression) believe something does not make it true. Bill Nye is arbitrarily deciding that his preferred explanation is far more compelling. It is compelling because it fits his own worldview/fake reality. God also reveals to us why it is compelling to some people. God says: "They love darkness rather than light." "They don't want to acknowledge God or to serve Him." "Their deeds are evil." Of course, in their own minds, their deeds may not seem, to them, to be evil. Every person's way is right in his or her own eyes, but God reveals that He made us to be joined to Him in a union by which we are workers together with Him and He does His works through us. Anything else is sin. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Fallacy Abuse

Rocky: "I don't believe in molecules-to-man evolution because God speaks to me through the Bible, saying that He created the Heavens and the Earth in six days."

Sandy: "Ha! Ha! That's the logical fallacy of an argument from personal incredulity."

Rocky: "Actually it's not. It's not my lack of belief that makes molecules-to-man evolution untrue, nor is it the fact that there is no evidence that conclusively shows that it happened. It is the fact that an absolutely trustworthy evidence, God, has shown it not to be true."