Exposing the Logical Fallacy of Islamic Objection to the Deity of Jesus Christ
Exposing the Logical Fallacy of Islamic Objection to the Deity of Jesus Christ
One of the most common Muslims' objection to the Christianity is asking Christians to show them where Jesus Christ said "I am God worship me". This is a bad Islamic logic/argument promoted by Zakir Naik and Ahmed Deedat. It's like saying that a thief will have to say unequivocally that he is a thief even though there are sufficient evidences before incriminating him. Jesus' resurrection, miracles, fulfilment of prophecies, teachings, claims to deity and his acceptance of Lordship and worship are enough proofs of his deity.
The argument of Muslims that Jesus Christ is not divine/God since there's no where Jesus Christ said unequivocally that "I am God, worship me" is like exonerating a thief because he didn't say that he is a thief. The argument falls short of logical reasoning and commits some logical fallacies as exposed below:
Fallacy of appeal to ignorance
This is another example of the fallacy of appeal to ignorance. Just because Jesus did not explicitly say, "I am God, worship me" does not mean that he was not divine. There are many examples in the Bible where Jesus' divinity is implied, but not explicitly stated. For example, Jesus forgave sins, performed miracles, and referred to himself as the "Son of God". While Jesus may not have said the exact words "I am God", the evidence from the Bible suggests that he was divine. Therefore, the argument that Jesus is not divine because he did not explicitly state that he was is a logical fallacy.
Fallacy of false dilemma
In addition, this argument also commits the fallacy of false dilemma. The argument presents two options, either Jesus is divine or he is not, without considering any other possibilities. This is a fallacy because there are other possible explanations for Jesus' actions and words. For example, it is possible that Jesus as a great moral teacher was avoiding to speak explicitly about His divinity to avoid being misunderstood by his audience. Also, it may also be possible that Jesus was speaking from His human nature as a Prophet who was sent by God. Christianity teaches from the Bible that Jesus Christ is both divine and human and He spoke and acted from these His two hypostatic natures. Therefore, the argument that Jesus is not divine because he did not explicitly say so is a false dilemma that does not consider all the possible explanations.
Straw man fallacy
Another logical fallacy that this argument commits is the straw man fallacy. The argument sets up a false version of the opposing view and then refutes it. In this case, the argument sets up the view that Jesus is not divine, and then refutes that view by saying that Jesus did not explicitly say he was divine. However, this is a misrepresentation of the opposing view. The opposing view is not simply that Jesus did not say he was divine, but rather that the evidence does not support the claim that Jesus was divine. Therefore, the argument commits the straw man fallacy by misrepresenting the opposing view.
Argument from silence
Another logical fallacy that the argument commits is the argument from silence. This fallacy occurs when an argument is made from the lack of evidence rather than from the presence of evidence. In this case, the argument is made from the lack of evidence that Jesus explicitly said he was divine. However, the absence of evidence is not proof that something is false. Just because Jesus did not say he was divine does not mean that he was not divine. There could be other reasons why he did not explicitly say he was divine, such as the cultural context of his time. Therefore, the argument from silence is a logical fallacy that is not supported by evidence.
Genetic fallacy
It's also important to point out that the argument commits a genetic fallacy. This fallacy occurs when an argument is made based on the source of the claim rather than the claim itself. In this case, the argument is based on the claim that Jesus was not divine because he did not explicitly say he was divine. However, this does not address the actual claim itself. It is possible that Jesus was divine even if he did not explicitly say so. The argument commits the genetic fallacy by judging the truth of the claim based on its source rather than on the merits of the claim itself. In summary, the argument that Jesus was not divine because he did not explicitly say he was divine commits several logical fallacies, including the appeal to ignorance, the straw man fallacy, and the genetic fallacy. These fallacies make the argument invalid and should not be used to support the claim that Jesus was not divine.
In conclusion, the claim that Jesus was divine or not divine should be evaluated based on the evidence, not on the fact that he did or did not explicitly say he was divine. What do you think about these fallacies? Do you agree that they invalidate the argument?
Comments
Post a Comment