It worries me when someone who has a screen name that apparently describes him/her as knowledgeable in logic misdoes logic. In the video title, LogicFilter claims to “dismantle” Ravi Zacharias’s argument. But listen and watch carefully. You will note that LogicFilter never once deals with Ravi’s argument. Filter instead creates his own representation of the argument—which is completely unlike Zacharias’s—and then proceeds to dismantle the misrepresentation.
Advertisement
Correct me if I’m wrong but did Mr. Ravi say anything about man being made in God’s image? Didn’t LogicFilter include that in his argument simply to discredit Mr. Ravi’s argument?
In LogicFilter’s argument he says that the assumptions God exists, God dictates a moral law, God is good, and man is created in God’s image cannot all be true at once because man is not good (in accordance with the contraposition rule of logic, if A then B consequently if not A then not B).
However, if you listen closely to Ravi’s argument you’ll notice that Ravi said nothing about man being made in God’s image. He didn’t include that in his argument because it had nothing to do with his argument. Mr. Ravi was simply saying that to acknowledge that there is evil in this world is to acknowledge the existence of a moral law and therefore a moral law giver. To acknowledge the existence of a moral law giver is to acknowledge the existence of God who is the moral law giver. So to argue that because of the existence of evil in this world God cannot exist is simply fallacious.
If we look at this argument using the rule of contraposition it goes something like this;
A= evil, which cannot exists without a moral law, exists
B= God, being the moral law giver, exists
Therefore if one acknowledges the existence of evil then they must acknowledge the existence of God since if evil exists then God exists. That is Mr. Ravi’s argument in a nutshell and unless I missed something it follows all the rules of contraposition and therefore is not asinine as LogicFilter claims.
All LogicFilter did was add to Mr. Ravi’s argument in order to discredit it. Had Mr. Ravi included the assumption that man is made in God’s image in his argument then he would have been misusing the contraposition rule of logic but he didn’t. I’m also pretty sure that Mr. Ravi would have chosen to go down the freewill path had he included the fourth assumption that man is made in God’s image in his argument.
Paula,
Very keen observations! You are very right. Nowhere did Ravi Zacharias mention what LogicFilter implied as a fourth assumption (“Man is created in God’s image”). To do such is to argue a strawman.
Allow me to add to your great comment. From the excerpt, one can only deduce that Zacharias makes the following points:
1. If there is evil, then there is good.
2. If there is good, then there is a moral law.
3. If there is a moral law, then there is a moral law giver.
According to Zacharias, the opponent concedes those points. Now, the opponent apparently argues that 1) there is evil, and wants to argue 2) there is no moral law giver (that is, God). To say such produces the following argument:
3′. If there is no moral law giver, there is no moral law. [contrapositive of 3]
2′. If there is no moral law, there is no good. [contrapositive of 2]
1′. If there is no good, there is no evil [contrapositive of 1].
4. There is no moral law giver.
5. Therefore, there is no evil.
This is all to say, as you put it, “Therefore if one acknowledges the existence of evil then they must acknowledge the existence of God since if evil exists then God exists.”
Regarding the freewill path, I agree with you.
Lastly, your statement of contraposition is slightly off. You said, “If A then B, consequently if not A then not B.” The correct statement would be: If A then B, consequently if not B then not A.
Thanks for the feedback.