A logical conundrum.

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

As I was listening to the debate of Dr. Lycan and Ravi Zacharias, I noticed that one of Ravi’s logical magic tricks didn’t sit too well with me; let me explain.

The topic was the book of Job. Dr. Lycan critiques it for a bit and then Ravi asks:

“Is it an authentic text or an inauthentic text? Because if your critique is valid, you must be critiquing a valid text.”

After a statement like this Dr. Lycan freezes up…the crowd starts to laugh at Lycans exspense…

I however don’t see why it’s funny…I think that’s an illogical argument. Text are critiqued to show they’re inauthenticy right?

If you disagree please tell me how this make sense…maybe I just don’t understand where he’s coming from on this one.

2

I don’t care whether it is authentic or inauthentic, either it’s clear or it’s a malformed, flawed idea, written down. I care only for quality, not source.

3

I agree that this is a stupid trick. If this dude is trying to prove that Job is wring, then he is by definition critiqueing an invalid text. Not sure how anyone could screw up like that…

4

Well…you may be confoosed here. I was saying the stupid trick was Ravi’s not Dr. Lycan(the guy who was critiquing)

But I can see the other way to look at it, as you. By definition if he believes the text is invalid than he actually is critiquing an invalid text.

However, I was trying to look at it as he’s critiquing the text to show that it’s invalid.

5

So was I…I haven’t listened to this thing, but I was under the impression that Ravi was supporting Job from your description. So Lycan is critiqueing it. Well, anyway I was agreeing with you.