Logical Fallacy of Infinite Regress / Homunculus Argument

Infinite regress 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 Infinite Regress / Homunculus Argument occurs when an argument forms an endless loop of dependent premises, never reaching a premise that can stand as true on its own. If the truth of a premise P1 is proven by premise P2, and the truth of premise P2 is proven by premise P3, and this pattern continues without being resolved, this is infinite regress.

The point of infinite regression is that it never provides any proof that does not itself need to be proved, so it appears to present evidence, yet the evidence is never shown to be valid. Infinite regression is one of the three possible invalid basis for secularist thinking, the other two are circular reasoning and assumption. All three leave the secularist with the problem of no real basis for making any conclusions. (see Agrippa's Trilemma)

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Infinite Regress / Homunculus Argument

The original homunculus argument in which it is stated that we see because there is an image projected in our head which a little man, a homunculus, sees. The question is, how does the little man see? He also has a little man inside his head, but how does this little man see? You guessed it. Another little man inside his head. And there is no end to it.

An evolutionist wanted to debate his creationist friend. The creationist didn't want to debate but agreed to discuss. When asked why he believed in evolution, the evolutionist gave a good concise answer. The creationist asked for the reason that the evolutionist thought that the premise of his answer was true. The evolutionist again gave a seemingly logical answer, but one that didn't prove the premises. In other words, there was no proof of the proof. So the creationist again asked for the proof of the proof. The creationist answered again. This went on for over an hour, which a tribute to this evolutionist. However, there came a time when the creationist asked, "And what convinces you of that?" This time, the evolutionist got a very surprised look on his face. He pulled his head back to think. Then, he blurted out, "I guess I'm making the whole thing up."

This example is a true story. It is not an argument against evolution but rather an example of infinite regress. It didn't go to infinity, of course, but it went longer than most questioners have patience and most who answer those questions will allow. Most people don't want to reveal their true reasoning, not even to themselves. It's embarrassing.