Generalizing from a Hypostatization |
Logical Fallacy of Generalizing from a HypostatizationGeneralizing form a hypostatization 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 Generalizing from a Hypostatization occurs when a concept or idea is regarded or treated as a distinct substance or reality. To hypostatize is to regard or treat a concept or idea as a distinct substance or reality. A hypostatization is something that is dreamt up and yet considered real. Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Generalizing from a Hypostatization
This statement makes the assertion that God does not exist and that God doesn’t speak to His people. It is made based on generalizing from a hypostatization. Any time an assumption or story is treated as if it were a fact, this is generalizing from a hypostatization. This is also an assertion contrary to fact. The reason that this assertion contrary to fact is made with such confidence is because of the hypostatization of Atheism or Agnosticism. Both Atheism and Agnosticism are concepts that are treated, by a few people, as facts. Since they seem to be facts to these people, they are very limiting. They disallow exploration of the real fact that everyone who seeks Christ in sincerity, humility, and persistence, and with a will to do His will does find Him.
![]()
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionMisused Statistics Innumeracy Clustering Illusion Bad Statistical Data Biased Statistical Method Biased Calculation Biased Conclusion from Statistics Biased Reporting of Statistics Loaded Statistics Error in Sampling Avoiding Specific Numbers False Precision Self-Selected Biased Sample Statistical Apples and Oranges Ludic Fallacy Fishing for Data Base Rate Neglect Isolated Examples Hasty Generalization Small Sample Size Bias General Rule Fallacy Specificity Overwhelming Exception Stereotyping Sweeping Generalization Gambler\'s Fallacy Appeal to Possibility Appeal to Infinite Possibilities Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy Misuse of Averages Recently Viewed |