Logical Fallacy of Inconsistency

Inconsistency 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 inconsistency occurs when contrary or contradictory statements are asserted to be true at the same time and in the same way.

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Inconsistency

"The body of scientific knowledge is constantly changing as we learn more." . . . (one hour later) . . . "It is unscientific and anti-intellectual to question the current body of scientific knowledge."

Either it is alright to question and change the current body of scientific knowledge or it is not. This type of inconsistent thinking is almost universal among evolutionists.

When anyone questions molecules-to-man evolution, millions of year, Big Bang, and Atheism/Naturalism/Materialism, they are likely to run into this inconsistency. One the one hand, trust what we believe because we believe it. On the other hand, it is trustworthy because it is constantly subject to challenge and change.

Sandy: "The most important morality is tolerance. We must be tolerant of all views. That means that we must accept them as good and correct. You are intolerant because you don't embrace every view."

Roxanne: "What views do you think I'm intolerant of?"

Sandy: "You don't help the LGBT movement, and you don't vote for politicians that would promote abortion to name two."

Roxanne: "So, if you are going to be tolerant, you ought to be embracing my views on these issues as well as your own views."

Sandy: "Never! I cannot be tolerant of what is intolerable."

The reality is that the word, tolerant, always meant to tolerate or allow even those things with which you don't agree. The new politically correct definition makes the word itself irrational and forces inconsistency as this little exchange points out. Some things are mutually exclusive, such as righteousness and sin.