Denying the correlative:
|When an attempt is made to introduce alternative explanations for a phenomenon where none exist.||My girlfriend wanted to know whether I had cheated on her. I told her that it was impossible to have cheated on her since if I had cheated, it would mean we never really had a real relationship to cheat on.|
|This fallacy is the converse of the false dilemma.|
Case Study One
Some theists claim their particular god becomes so angry over the very first offense a human commits that he immediately condemns that human to eternal torment. They then also claim that this same god is patient or “long-suffering”. If a human were to angrily deem damnation the only possible response to every offense of any severity, could we ever claim such a human was patient?
Case Study Two
Telling your date “I’m in a complicated relationship” is not an answer to their question “Are you married?” and is denying the correlative.
Case Study Three
Some Christians argue that, the price for sin is eternal death, that Jesus paid the price for sin, but that Jesus was dead for only 3 days. In order to reconcile this apparant incongruity, they suggest that God’s love for Jesus was eternal, and therefore Jesus’ 3 days of death was an adequate payment for the sins of the humans he bore. Some consider this to be an ad hoc and incoherent attempt to deny the correlative.
Keep in mind that a fallacious argument does not entail an erroneous position.