Proof Surrogate / Evidence Surrogate

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. Evidence surrogate 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.

Proof Surrogate / Evidence Surrogate occurs when evidence is mentioned, which gives the impression that there is evidence, when none has been provided.

It is very important to remember Agrippa's Trilemma. In secularistic 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 proof surrogate because of Agrippa's Trilemma.

Examples of Proof Surrogate / Evidence Surrogate

Sandra: “We have evidence, scientific evidence for evolution [meaning the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-Molecules-to-Man story] I believe in evolution because of science and reason.” 

Roxanne: “You really think you have evidence that all of that happened?"

Sandra: “Absolutely. We have the rock layers, the fossils, the distant starlight, thousands of transitional forms, the genetic evidence, and I could go on and on.”

Nothing that is claimed to be evidence in any way shows that the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-Molecules-to-Man story happened—and that goes for anything else Sandra might have brought up. All the so-called evidences for this story are based on assumptions. Additionally, none of them even attempt to prove that it actually happened, which is the claim that is supposedly being proved. They are all efforts to prove that it could have possibly happened, yet they don’t even prove that. The Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-Molecules-to-Man story is just assumed to be true as a starting point for reason and it is thought that it is unnecessary to prove that it actually happened. In fact, the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-Molecules-to-Man story is plagued by the Münchhausen Trilemma.

Sandra: “Science proves that God doesn’t exist.”

Roxanne: “Can you tell me the steps to the experiment that proves this?” 

Sandra: “Christians don’t understand science.”

Evidence is implied. Proof is implied. However, none is shown that we can test for ourselves. 

Entertainer, Michael Gungor: “Do I believe that God literally drowned every living creature 5,000 years ago in a global flood except the ones who were living in a big boat? No, I don’t. Why don’t I? Because of science and rational thought.”

Michael uses that magic words, science and rational thought rather than answering his own question in a rational way. He did follow this up with many irrational arguments against the flood, of course. Gainsayer

Fallacy Abuse

Roxanne: “I believe in Jesus Christ because I know Him personally. I don’t claim to be always faithful, or always listening, or always submissive. I’m learning to hear and discern His voice leading and teaching me moment by moment, and I’m learning to listen and respond in submission.”

Sandra: “Nice truth surrogate! You can say that, but I have no way of testing that supposed evidence. It’s a personal experience, so it isn’t allowed in a debate.”

Roxanne: “You may be debating, but I’m not. I’m not trying to beat you or win. I’m interested in truth rather than games. As to testing it, of course you can test it. Everyone who seeks Christ persistently and sincerely, with respect and a will to do His will always finds Him. It may take a while to get your mind right, since it seems that you are dead set against Him right now.”

Sandra: “No way. I’m not doing that.”

Sandra committed fallacy abuse by claiming that Roxanne was using a truth surrogate fallacy. However, Sandra was actually using a fallacy of refusing to look at the evidence.