Logical Fallacy of Proof by Theoretical Stories

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. Proof by theories (stories) 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.

The logical fallacy of proof by theoretical stories occurs when a story is made up to fit the observations as much as possible, but somehow the fact that the story is just a story is forgotten, and too much weight is given to the story. Sometimes, the story is even treated as if it had something to do with reality. In extreme cases, the theory/story is treated as if it were fact. Theories are used in science to try to explain what can be observed, however, they are not proof of anything. Models are also used in science, and they are helpful at times, but it must always be remembered that models and theories are not real. They may help understanding an idea, but they cannot show the idea to be any part of reality. This takes the form: I can make up stories about X. Therefore, X is true.

The logical fallacy of proof by theoretical stories is one of the many ways that Agrippa's Trilemma operates. Agrippa's Trilemma will assure that every argument against God, against the Bible, and against the history of the Bible will be based on either infinite regression, circular reasoning, or arbitrary assumptions that are taken as axioms. In other words, such arguments must be logical proof by fallacy. Fallacies can be very deceiving and hard to discover, but the fallacies will be there. And it doesn't matter whether the attacks come from an angry man like Dawkins or a rocker like Gungor, the fallacies will be the bases. Agrippa's Trilemma assures this to be true.

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Theoretical Stories

Bill Nye, speaking on the molecules-to-man story: "This was the discovery. Things merge up. Whatever makes it keeps going. Whatever doesn’t make it falls away."

Bill Nye is giving us a story as proof of evolution. Just because you can tell a story does not mean that the story actually happened.

Bill Nye: "So, everybody, just take a little while and grasp this fundamental idea. It’s how you fit in with nature around you. So, as the world changed, as it did for the ancient dinosaurs, they were taken out by a worldwide fireball, apparently caused by an impact."

Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of unsupported assertion. The fireball story is just a story. It ought to be stated as a belief without proof that this was the cause of the death of the dinosaurs.

Rocky: "Generation of matter from nothing requires pure speculation and violates all that we know about the First Law of Thermodynamics. There are stories that are told to try to rescue the Big Bang, but stories are just stories after all, no matter who tells them."

Sandy: "Actually, it does matter who tells them. When an explanation of the Physics of the Big Bang is given by an Astronomer who has many years of education in Physics, has considerable experience in collecting Astronomical data and, most importantly, has evidence for things like gravity waves in the cosmic background radiation that is testable and verifiable I am far more likely to accept what he says about the Big Bang than a creationist who is not highly educated in Physics, does not engage in actual research, has no evidence to support his creation theory that is testable and verifiable. has a lot more credibility for me than some preacher that has no knowledge of Physics, has done no research, has no idea what the evidence the astronomers collected entails and has no evidence that contradicts the Big Bang other than ancient scripture."

Rocky: "Actually, every person who believes what God is saying has evidence that trumps the stories and arbitrary assumptions of the most skilled and educated storytellers and dreamers. Jesus Christ is not a theory or an idea. Jesus is a real person. The storytellers and dreamers never present any actual observation that conflicts with what Jesus Christ reveals. Their stories and dreams are no more valid than anyone else's."

Sandy is guilty of the fallacy of false appeal to authority in claiming that the made-up stories and arbitrary assumptions of the scientist are somehow evidence of anything. Made-up stories and arbitrary assumptions are a form of lie as soon as they are given any credibility or presented as if they were part of sound reasoning. The "Astronomer who has many years of education in Physics, has considerable experience in collecting Astronomical data and, most importantly, has evidence for things like gravity waves in the cosmic background radiation that is testable and verifiable" is more qualified to collect astronomical data and talk about actual observation, but that astronomer is no more qualified than anyone else to go beyond the data into dream land. "The scientist who took a telescope to the South Pole and made observations for three years" was there to observe what he observed, but has no authority to go beyond what he observed in telling creative stories about what he dreams that those observations mean. Made-up stuff is made-up stuff no matter who is making it up.

The person who doesn't want God to exist will counter by saying, "Divine revelation is made-up stuff." But how do they come to this conclusion. Their conclusion is based on circular reasoning, and it goes like this: "I presuppose that God doesn't exist. You claim that God reveals, but if God doesn't exist, He can't reveal anything. Therefore, Divine revelation is made-up stuff." That is circular reasoning.