Logical Fallacy of Least Plausible Hypothesis

Least plausible hypothesis 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. Then, without Divine revelation, by what means would one determine the most or least plausible hypothesis? 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 Least Plausible Hypothesis occurs when a hypothesis that conflicts with known facts is chosen over one that doesn’t conflict with known facts or when a hypothesis that requires more arbitrary assumptions/stories is chosen over one that requires less arbitrary assumptions/stories.The fact that hypotheses or theories go beyond what can be known means that all hypotheses and theories are problematic. Beware of thinking about which is least plausible. There is a tendency to choose the one you desire to be true as the most plausible.

It is very important to remember Agrippa's Trilemma. In secularist thinking the only three options are to make any conclusions based on infinite regression, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. Axiomatic thinking is a kind way of saying "making assumptions." Making assumptions is a kind way of saying "making things up" or "lying." For a person to put any weight on a hypotheses or a theory that involves assumptions is irrational because a chain of thought is only as strong as its weakest link. Made up stories and assumptions have no strength at all. On the other hand, for those who follow Christ, it is not necessary to have all reason destroyed by Agrippa's Trilemma, since you have another option. That option is Divine revelation. Going beyond what God reveals to you is unnecessary. For many things, it's OK to admit that you don't know. Don't make up stories and deceive yourself into thinking that fabrications are part of reality. Evidence that is brought from a secularist presupposition is always some form of hypotheses because of Agrippa's Trilemma.

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Least Plausible Hypothesis

The two main models for origins are the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story (BBBoYNFMtM) and the historical account of the Creation and the Flood revealed by God through the Bible (CF). BBBoYNFMtM requires countless assumptions and just-so stories to hold the hypothesis together and it violates several scientific laws, which requires even more just-so stories to explain away the evidence. CF requires no assumptions or just-so stories and violates no scientific laws. Yet some people prefer BBBoYNFMtM.

Given the incomprehensible number and severity of the assumptions that would need to be made for evolutionism to be true, the explanation that the evolutionistic story is mythology, by far, is the most economical explanation.

"OK. So we are stuck with the fact that there is soft tissue in dinosaur fossils that are supposed to be millions of years old. That means that there is something that we just don't understand about soft tissue and the way it is preserved. It must be that it is really this old. It can't be that the Bible is correct about the age of the Earth."

Anything but the historical account! It is amazing what people who don't want to acknowledge God are willing to believe. We are not dogmatically claiming to know that the Earth is 6,000 years old. We know that God created the Heavens and the Earth in six days and we know the number of generations between Adam and Christ. That's about it. Even though a plain reading of Scripture seems to indicate a young Earth; even though there is zero observed evidence and only circular reasoning and speculations that support old Earth stories, we can't even deny the possibility that God could have done something that Scripture doesn't hint at and that has left no scientific evidence. It is possible. It just is not worth the time to think about it.