| Proof by Repeated Assertion |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Flawed Evidence
>
Proof by Repeated Assertion
|
Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion / Proof by Repeated Assertion /Argument by Repetition / Argumentum Ad Nauseam / NaggingProof by repeated assertion 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 Proof by Assertion / argument by repetition / argumentum ad nauseum / nagging occurs when a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction, when someone simply repeats a conclusion when asked to supply some premise that would support the conclusion. Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion / Proof by Repeated Assertion /Argument by Repetition / Argumentum Ad Nauseam / Nagging
Either Al doesn’t know Jesus or he knows Jesus and doesn’t know how to tell anyone about it. If Al knows Jesus, Jesus leads him. Jesus Himself declares to anyone who follows Him that the Bible is His Word without error. Jesus declares this fact through the Bible and by speaking into the innermost mind of every person who will listen. The way that Bill can know that is to seek Jesus with sincerity, humility, respect, and a will to do God’s will. Everyone who seeks Jesus does find Him. Unfortunately, Bill has to walk this road to Jesus himself. It may help him if he gets into a church that is alive with the Holy Spirit or to have some people who are willing to pray for him and with him, but he alone can supply the submission to Jesus Christ. No one else can accept the free gift for him.
Milly is certainly proclaiming her message, but she gives no premise, no reason to believe her. Restating the same claim in different words is not helpful at all. Note that evolution is repeated from every form of communication (schools, news, movies, advertising, etc.) using assumptive language that just assumes it to be an undisputed fact. Every evidence against it is ignored or swept away with logical fallacies. Hearing the same story told from so many sources ends up being very convincing, yet the only evidence for evolution rests on creative stories, arbitrary assumptions, irrational thinking, and even lies. On the other hand, through the Bible, God Himself reveals that He created the Heavens and the Earth in six days. Relativism is repeatedly taught in schools and through many media outlets, yet it contradicts itself. If everything is relative, then that statement itself is relative. If there is no truth, then it is not true to say that there is no truth. If we can't know truth, then we can't know that we can't know truth. Any way you state relativism, it is self-refuting. Fallacy Abuse
Sandra is misunderstanding the fallacy. Roxanne never said that the lack of evidence disproves molecules-to-man evolution or billions of years. She merely stated that there is no real evidence. It is irrational to say these are proven or to be dogmatic about them. At the same time, Roxanne is building her logic on the Rock, Jesus Christ, and His revelation as He speaks to Her in her innermost mind through the Bible, although this is unstated. 
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionProof by Fallacy Evidence Surrogate Error in Observation Misrepresenting the Facts Distorted Evidence Unverified Evidence Hysteron Proteron Unsubstantiated Inference Assuming Facts Not In Evidence Wishful Thinking Appeal to Worldview Slippery Slope Limited Scope Mind Reading Shoehorning Confirmation Bias Sacred Cow Fantasy Projection Group Think Context Imposition Psychologist\'s Fallacy Amazing Familiarity Stolen Concept Weak Inference Proof by Theoretical Stories Anecdotal Evidence Dismissing All Personal Testimony Rewriting History Proof by Model Proof by Assumption Personal Incredulity Argument by Lack of Imagination Argument by Imagination Capturing the Naive Argument from Personal Astonishment Special Pleading Variant Imagization Self-Exclusion Unintended Self-Inclusion Ad Personam Cherishing the Zombie Argumentum Ad Lapidem Understatement Tautology Declaring Victory Assumption Correction Assumption Questionable Criteria Summary Dismissal Thought-Terminating Cliche Truism Perfectionist Fallacy Worst Case Scenario Fallacy Unwarranted Extrapolation Untestability Subjectivist Fallacy Bizarre Hypothesis Least Plausible Hypothesis Extravagant Hypothesis Privileging the Hypothesis Canceling Hypotheses Appeal to False Faith False Appeal to Heaven Inaccurate Models Hedging Politician\'s \"We\" Appeal to Nature Experimenter Bias Crucial Experiment Hearsay Ad Hoc Rescue Hindsight Bias Fallacy of the Beard Argument from Fallacy Inflation of Conflict Infinite Regress Reification Personification Slothful Induction Superstitious Thinking Meaningless Question Proving Non-Existence Argumentum ad Imaginibus Statement of Conversion Outdated Information Argument by Laziness Alien Fallacy Quantum Physics Fallacy Fallacious Abstraction Appeal to the Unknown Grasping at Straws Pragmatism Fake Hope Appeal to Intuition Appeal to Mystery Argument from Design Untestability Imaginary Evidence Monopolizing the Question Fallacy of Antecedent Faulty Predictor Pretentious Antecedent Pretentious Premise Recently Viewed |
