The moral law is not equal to good. That is really bad theology. God is not moral He is superior Virtue not equal to law in holy character. We are not here to stop the evil around us. The Spirit restrains evil we don't. Morality is not the definition of good. Example; the law says if a man picks up wood on the Sabbath day he is to be stoned to death. That is not good or justice, yet God gave that law to prove man powerless in flesh to obey.Good is a Person, God alone which is not defined by law.
@polopowers1 Sir. I like the fact that you are thinking but there are some errors here. You are combining "The Law" and the Traditions of the elders and teachers; they are not the same. If you look at the life of Jesus you will see how he pointed that out to the Pharisees and Sadducee. God has given each of us a moral law and it is impressed within each of us. The trouble is that it can be ignored and suppressed
@jmoshkowski Once the Spirit is given making new creations the moral law no longer drives us inside. But superior virtue of Christ greater than law.All law, traditions, it does not matter they have not the same virtue as Spirit life. All law is powerless to make man the best he could be before God
all have sinned and greatly offended the holy God of the bible by breaking the ten commandments. the just punishment is death then hell. thats not Gods will. He sent forth His Son Jesus Christ to suffer and die on the cross paying for the law you broke in His lifes blood. now He commands you to repent turn from sin and trust alone in Jesus Christ for your salvation. please dont put this off.
Luke 16:29-31 says that even if someone came back from hell, and told you God was real and to repent, you would not believe him. Even if you knew God was real, and had all the evidence in the world, you still wouldn't bow down to Him. Want an example? Satan. He was God's right hand angel and he was cast from heaven. Why? Because he didn't want to follow God's ways and wanted to be God. It has nothing to do with reason/evidence, but with your will to submit to His name by trusting Him.
Ravi is correct in saying that good exists only in relation to evil and that for any statements to be made about "good" or "evil" there must have been a moral law giver. But he fails to recognize that there can be many different moral law givers. There need not be one, and it need not be divine. The human brain is perfectly capable of creating its own moral law. Because many people's moral laws are similar doesn't imply that there is only ONE moral law giver, and that we've never seen it.
Its a no brainer people. We know the difference between Good/ Evil. Because we are built that way. God has created us in his image. Laws of logic. Think!! O_O
God's Laws, so God is the Moral Law Giver!!! Always has and always will. He's God Almighty, don't you forget it. >_<
void of any kind of substantial rebuttal to Ravi's articulation, people resort to name calling or what is professionally known as an ad hominem argument (attacking the persons character instead of the subject at hand). Whats new...
@ThirdStreetSaint777 lol, definitely not, but I appreciate the complement. honestly, i was opening my email expecting to be castigated by some atheist. thank you for the welcome surprise!
I identified about 7 shades of bullshit in this video. If he is the 'current reigning king' of apologetics then apologetics are in biiiiiiig trouble haha. What an idiotic argument.
So the only reason we have good is because god allows evil, kind of makes further problems for him don't you think? What good being would allow evil to flourish, it wouldn't be a good being it would be an evil one so where is the goodness to begin with? We must be the moral law givers, because we have to do what benefits all of humanity and we must take up guilt for mistakes as well.
@dougmoerhoffman But if evil is needed for free will according to christians you'll be puppets. That and this fleeting life actually has value because its the only one we have, an infinite life is pointless. Living in eternal ecstasy or agony for a finite life is ultimately pointless and insane because you'll be stuck in one place forever and eventually run out of things to do.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence why can't you repent of your sins and turn to Christ who is waiting for you with open arms? I'm sorry friend, no man is more knowledgeable or wiser than God in how to operate this world. You want proof? We've been messing it up ever since we've been created. Plz my friend, ask Him with an honest heart. He's not looking for perfect ppl, He's looking for honest ppl who desire to live for truth, life, and love. Come as you are, and He will give you rest.
@JogaHenryBonito One just can't simply turn to god out of faith, not if one seeks truth and in order to find truth you must have reason and knowledge. All of what you are claiming is not known, we do not know what god is the real one. We can't know god's emotions, thoughts, abilities, or anything else. It is equivalent to sherlock holmes trying to find out that that sir arthur conan doyle wrote him into existence.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence This verse also tells us that if you do not read the Holy Bible with an honest heart, and you don't believe, then you will not believe in Christ. So just trust Him, He loves you greatly friend. Take some time to hear what He has to say. It will change your life.
@JogaHenryBonito I did read the bible with an open mind and when I did I was appalled by the ultra violence, confused by the characters reasoning and absurd events, and found a great number of contradictions as well as hypocritical actions that the people did within the very pages. The first thing the bible needs is an editor.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Well my friend this is my honest question to you. Do you desire to believe and trust in God but feel limited because you feel it requires one to abandon reason and knowledge? Or do you desire to prove that God is not worthy of your life and you desire to seek truth elsewhere?
@dougmoerhoffman it does require if and only if the man with the free will desires evil, then God who respects free will lets him have it, so in other words yes it requires it bec some people just want evil...
Well there is something call the laws of logic. Is where the human being has capability and instinct to determine something evil or good. For example how do u know rape is good or evil? Laws of logic. God is the moral law giver.
I've heard Ravi follow this line of thinking a few times but I can't seem to find him explaining how you go from a moral law to a moral law giver. Any help?
1. The moral law is absolute (It is absolutely wrong to kill someone even if we were all brainwashed to think it's good)
2. The moral law exists in person-hood only
3. Therefore, person-hood is intrinsic to the question: "Where does morality come from?" which means the answer must also have the value of person-hood in it
4. Thus, a person of absolute worth created morality in all persons (Because the moral law is absolute)
He's in error. Christians are the ones assuming there is a moral lawgiver. But this moral lawgiver contradicts his own morals. I believe morals are created by people. I'm not assuming there is objective right and wrong. I'm just pointing out the Christian's moral contradiction. The problem of evil arises only because of the Christian's own claims about divine morality.
"What is your question?" MY question is "I'm not trying to disprove a moral law giver, I'm trying to disprove GOD. Why are you assuming the moral law giver must be God?"
@356designer So? THEY obviously would not make for appropriate law givers...let's find someone else. Why must that law giver be God rather than just a good person, or some good people, or even just NORMAL people?
In order to take the moral law seriously, it must be based on the intrinsic value of persons, which in turn must be based on the value ascribed to personhood by some particular person. If that person's idea of the value of personhood is to be considered binding on all people everywhere, rather than simply another of many subjective value judgements, then the person ascribing the value must be intrinsically worthy. They must be a person who is worthy of high value in and of themselves. God!
@ILOVEHACKEYSACK "The moral law must be based on the intrinsic value of PERSONS." That's an interesting claim, but I wonder if it's the ONLY thing that could have intrinsic worth. Utilitarianism, for example, treats HAPPINESS as intrinsically valuable. "The person ascribing the value must be intrinsically worthy of the highest degree." Well, the highest degree of intrinsic worth may not be that high...at bottom, all people may want to do is survive and reproduce (continued in next post)
@ILOVEHACKEYSACK which would make the moral standard universal but not very rigorous or demanding. Don't know if that makes sense...anyways, your argument is interesting, and MUCH better than the one Zacharias presents. BTW, I always like having discussions like this...feel free to PM me if you want to talk more.
@templar19 Thank you that no matter what worldview someone has, you can be respectful and still share your opinion. Your not a douce, and I love you for it lol. No homo.
@swandike His statements were completely illogical he in no way showed there was a moral law giver just because people believe in moral laws. i can believe that it is morally right to eat children. does this prove there is a moral law giver? i strive to live in peace with others because I desire to live at peace and be trusted. if others want to live in peace with me too they must strive to uphold this as well. pretty simple... I don't need a god to justify my morals.
@TheAlphaPyro what you have to understand is, the western world and even other parts of the world have always been shaped by religion. It is embeded in our history and you cant changed that. This is where morality started. This is also where most of our laws originated. Now what these atheists are saying, is to rule out religion which has always been with us. but they offer no alternative. if we rule out our current rights and wrongs, it will be chaos. people will do all sorts.
@swandike Morality did not start with practiced religion. Morality is part of our genetic makeup. One can see moral priority even in mice. people don't do good just because of religion they do good because of cops & a value for well being. Protective laws are put in place through democratic process. Tell me is the majority of educated society going to allow rape, murder and theft, etc? look at how healthy and crime free European nations that are mostly atheists or nonbelievers are.
@TheAlphaPyro who told you that lie, that europeans have crime free countries. and who told you that lie that morality is in our genetic makeup? The only crime free country I know of is singapore and even that they practise various religions in harmony. Look up peter singer and you will understand why we need religion. he is one sick atheist guy. Give a man the chance of freedom and see him degenerate into an animal. even the undiscovered people in the amazon have religion.
@swandike I didn't mean they are without crime or anything like that. It might even be argued by some that in a relative sense to no crime there is lots of crime there. I was simply stating that relative to other countries like those in africa or throughout most of the world they are pretty darned crime free and certainly don't fit your quote of "it will be chaos." i don't care about one guy. i can site plenty of religious people of any denomination u want that are horrible.
@swandike morality is very genetic in nature u can see moral decisions made throughout the animal kingdom such as those involving altruism in monkeys. That does not mean that religion plays no part in morality, it most certainly has. both good and bad. you also are not giving due credit to secular moralities influence on religion like women getting to vote and its important roll in abolishing the usa's slavery despite the fact that even the new testament condones it.
@TheAlphaPyro you are wrong my friend. If you can prove to me that our ancestors never practised religion I will believe you. if you can prove to me that religion was created in our generation I will believe you. Whether you like it or not, religion is embeded in our way of life for thousands of years. It has guided men to live normal lives. Picking sorry arguements like that means nothing to me. you probably dont even know what you talking about, so i will waste no breath on that.
@swandike "guided men to live Normal l lives" like strapping bombs to themselves, oppressing women and homosexuals, stopping lifesaving stem cell research, been used as a justification for war, justification for rape, justification for murder, slavery. A discerning individual would see that atrocities can be committed in the name or religion and justified even in its absence. So the discerning individual would put laws into effect to protect people because no matter what people will act out.
@TheAlphaPyro for every law made, they will always be law breakers. I stand for christianity that will not ask you to strap bombs and rape anyone. Homosexuality is evil, I still stand by that, think about being constipated and compare it to gay sex,lol, sorry for that analogy. Ethics are necessary to stop people creating sick creatures. like the mistaken invention of HIV while looking for polio vaccine. now do you know what atheism is offerring? read about peter singer, very sick.
@swandike R u arguing that reason doesn't call for ethics? If I want to discover something should I go about it in a way that can endanger others? How does this necessitate religion all it necessitates is a desire for self preservation.u think hiv was created while looking for a polio vaccine? As a science teacher i must say u need to do your homework. that hypothesis was rejected in studies found in Science magazine and Nature (2 of the most respected) in 2000. i will site articles if u want
@TheAlphaPyro do you think they will admit that they created HIV in an experiement?. who in his right mind will admit to it. can they afford the law suits that will follow? of course they will reject it. Look at how many people have been inffected and those that have died and the families destroyed. You need to also do your own analysis instead of accepting what people write in magazines. we all have brains to analyse anything. you dont have to be a scientist to know this.
@swandike They're not just magazines they are peer reviewed scientific journals A place where falsehood is shown through experimentation & analysis. it's not some opinion column with special interests. The genetic characteristics of the viruses used to make the vaccine are not comparable to hiv. To suggest some vast conspiracy has been holding back nearly all the scientific community full of people that would love the fame of being the righteous whistle blower is nuts what r yer sources of info?
@TheAlphaPyro I know that the SIV in monkeys mutated and found itself into human somehow and turn into HIV. I also know there are classfied documents for every conspiracy which will be released in the future. When it will harm the reputation of very powerful people, we wont know yet. I read scientific journals and magazines as open minded as I can. if we had access to every document on this planet, there wont be any conspiracy, will there?
@swandike it would be easy to show that polio played a role in this development of hiv. One could show that the polio virus is embedded in some part or form in hiv. The sequences of both viruses should be widely available. it's pretty cheap to sequence stuff yourself if u think the sequences have been changed as part of a vast conspiracy. people have even built their own sequencers for a couple grand with ebay parts. is there any evidence to suggest genetic similarity?
@TheAlphaPyro there are speculations all over the internet that certain strains are similar, but this truth is being rejected. if you read my post, u will agree with me concerning classified documents. u will agree we are being kept in a dark and we are allowed to know what we are supposed to know.
@swandike u never answered my question: is the majority of educated society going to allow rape, murder and theft, etc? Would it not try to stop harmful behaviors with laws? people do good because it feels good. They do good to have friendships, they do good to live at peace with others and so they can benefit from amnesty. Time will tell which one of us is right as more countries abandon religion. until then, we both can really only speculate. i'm an atheist yet a charitable loving person.
@logoRH I agree, or it could be argued that there is more than one god , there would have to be several gods all giving a different moral law for the same human action e.g. the moral age of marriage could be anywhere between 5 yrs and 25 years of age.
It was this guys imaginary god who created the angel that would turn against. If he didn't know this angel would turn against him then this god cannot be omniscient as theists claim. If he did know this angel would turn against him but goes ahead and creates him then this god has to be evil. Try again Ravi old boy your argument sucks.
So here is a simple question to all theists. God through Moses demanded that gays and lesbians be stoned to death.. According to the the person in the video this might be an evil act but good will come out of it. So let have some straight answers, would you stone gays and lesbians to death. Even if it's against secular law god is saying you must obey my laws.
absolute and therefore has a few absolute laws that if we wish to be absolute must follow. Your right about the world turning more and more relativist but is that right? Is God relative? I think in the sea of chaos which is life there must be a rock we can all hold on to that is absolute truth. There may be few of them, but the fact that there is even one is enough. For example when you say absolutely that there are no absolute truths, that in itself would be an absolute truth haha
@imapisces23 As a Christian, I personally live by Christian values, the most central being "love thy neighbour." I think that most (but not all) societies, Christian or not, develop such a stance, both out of neccessity, but also out of human nature.
But don't kid yourself. Violence and chaos are worshipped and glorified by many societies. Just look at the tribes of South America. We would consider their sacrifices to be barbaric today, but they were the social norm to the Aztecs.
@jfleminator Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
@jfleminator Not to mention that DNA is required for reproduction and yet the information encoded in DNA is required before DNA can execute replication. So the first thing required is something initially abstract which is instructions/information. How does an abstract concept or idea come into existence when it's not tangible. What is required is for thought to happen to create the idea first which requires intelligence. Atheist try to dodge this but really can't.
@5tonyvvvv If what you're asking is how something abstract (information) can be used to create something tangible,just look at computers which can perform incredibly complex processess when essentially they are just a bunch of "open" and "closed" semiconductors. For a more insightful answer I would highly recommend chapter 2 of Steven Pinker's "How the Mind Works".
@5tonyvvvv On the other hand, if this is a "which came first: the chicken or the egg?" type question. Then the answer has to be DNA of course, because extremely complex proteins cannot spontaneously assemble. On the other hand, where does the DNA come from? How are the chemical reactions isolated? Not much is known about the origin of life. But to say that just because we can't explain exactly how it happened, that there must be a god is an appeal to ignorance.
@jfleminator HAHAHA!! Computers are DESIGNED!! They need programmers!! Computers need INFORMATION to FUNCTION!! You are so BLIND!! and INDOCTRINATED!!
@5tonyvvvv If something fucks up in a program, the programmer changes it (hopefully), and the bad part is replaced. If something major fucks up in a organism's genetic code it will probably die before reproducing . The random mutations are the "trial" and the environment is the "error" with both effectively serving as the "programmer". This is a very basic concept of evolution.
@jfleminator You are assuming there is junk inside of a cell. Also from chemicals you have NOTHING to select from! Natural process can't even form a single protein!! You expect there to be genetic material..LOL Come on man! You just took Giant Leaps! From NOTHING! ZERO INFORMATION has Formed yet!
@5tonyvvvv I don't know if i said anything about junk inside of the cell, but there is such a thing as "junk" Dna, or DNA that doesn't code for anything and basically just takes up space. Look it up. Also, as far as we know, EVERY single protein that has been discovered was formed by natural processes and not divine intervention. Ribosomes chain amino acids together by using code from mRNA to make protein. Before you continue this argument, I suggest you read up on some very basic biology.
@jfleminator There is no such thing as junk DNA, this is a term that has been falling out of use, because they are finding more and more uses for this so called Junk DNA, A cell is a City of unfathomably sophisticated complex biochemical systems!!! Also you still don't understand Homochirality, Amino acids never organize themselves! EVER!
@5tonyvvvv Okay, so maybe alot of the "junk" DNA does useful things besides encoding proteins. But I understand where you are going know. Everything has a purpose. Is it not possible that some of that DNA is just fragments from DNA which our ancestors needed? Of course not. I suppose you're going to tell me now that the appendix and the tail bone have some divine purpose, that we are not aware of now because we can not fathom the infinte complexity behind an organ that literally does nothing.
@jfleminator The appendix is not useless, it provides our intestines with good bacteria, and to add digestion. The tailbone Myth as if we swung from trees in the past what a lie, babies today are born with small useless tails, they have no function, its just hanging skin.
@5tonyvvvv The appendix theory is supported by inconclusive evidence. Its seems to explain the position of the appendix, its purpose for nomadic societies, and its diminished purpose for modern industrial societies. Also it seems to explain the lower rate of appendicitis in less developed countries. (How much lower I would like to know). And that could be caused by other things. Correlation is not always evidence of causation. IT COULD BE RIGHT. But what if it isn't?
@5tonyvvvv Why does it fail to explain that its susceptibility to failure seems to significantly outweigh its supposed benefits. A REAL test of this theory would be to have a two groups that are isolated and bacteria is purged from the intestines. But one group has their appendix removed and the other doesn't. Then you measure how quickly new bacteria are formed, what kind of bacteria, and what happens to the appendix. This is how you go beyond hypothesis and into the real world.
@jfleminator Hey man you have made a great case. Im not a PhD level Biochemist and I can confidently say most people on you tube have very little knowledge on the subject, atheist or christian, ill try to get back to you, I don't have all the answers, neither do evolutionists. Have a great day!
@5tonyvvvv Okay, thanks for the interesting conversation. And as for homochirality, I don't know why sugars and proteins and such are arbitrarily one-sided. It reminds me alot of antimatter. Why is there only regular matter and all the antimatter as been obliterated. Who knows?
@imapisces23 You say "when you say absolutely that there are no absolute truths, that in itself would be an absolute."
Yep, you're not the first person to say that. It's called the "paradox of relativism." But it doesn't make relativism any less valid. The fact remains that human morality is vastly different to differing cultures, and this is absolutely true.
But, I repeat, in no way whatsoever does this invalidate relativism on a socio-cultural level.
@BasilFawlty4444 I agree with you about relativism. The guy in the video does not seem to recognize that morality changes over time and place i.e. they are social constructs e.g. what should the legal age of sexual consent be? He claims their is a moral law giver but he doesn't say who. The n notion of sexual consent changes over time and place. The same goes for marriage. So what does his imaginary god say the legal age of sexual consent should be.
@DrMontague Why does there have to be an Age of Consent ? There is a biblical view of being married and loving God. Marriage in the biblical view is about being fruitful and raising a family to love God. Man thinks he has a moral standard but every inclination of mans heart is wicked. Any morality is given by an unction of Gods holiness and goodness, mans ability to conform to a moral construct is impossible w/o Gods staying hand.
@underman58 Hypothetically speaking if you have had an a 6yr old daughter you wouldn't mind her marrying a 52 yr old man and consummating the marriage when she is 9 yrs of age. This is what the prophet Mohammad did. Some how I don't think you would approve even if your daughter agreed to the marriage. You would soon throw the god shit out with the dirty bath water.
As a Christian, I hate to have to destroy this guy's argument...
but please everyone, google "moral relativism", "relativism" or "cultural relativism."
Basically, this means that our morals and concept of good is derived from the culture and society in which we were brought up and conditioned, more simply defined as:
"Our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes." - Franz Boas, 1887
@imapisces23 Conceptions of right and wrong vary hugely from society to society. If by "moral law" you mean one single absolutely truthful law, then no, there is no such thing; there simply cannot be. Ravi takes a universal absolutist stance on morality. In reality, relativism reflects the varying human societies.
To refer back to Boas' description of relativism, our ideas of right and wrong "are only true" in our own society. Different cultures have different values, thus there is no one right.
@BasilFawlty4444 You call yourself a Christian but fail to see foundational Christian ideas. God wrote down on the 10 commandments our moral law which is absolute for every living human at any time ever. The fact that there is so much variation in our human societies today just goes to show how far off the simple straight path of righteousness we have strayed. Relativism may reflect humanity today, but the truth is not relative, which is why we see so much disharmony today.
@imapisces23 The fact that there is so much disharmony simply reflects the fact that there is no such thing as an absolute moral law, and in our far more interconnected world, these different world views are clashing.
Many philosophers have attempted to define absolute morality, but all have failed. The most notable absolutist was Immanuel Kant, who believed that actions were right and wrong "in themselves," at all times and places. This view fails when you must lie to protect loved ones lives.
I think most people would agree that morality actions that take consideration of other conscious creatures into account. Actions and thoughts that consider the well being of others that can suffer. That's a pretty simple one.
@blaisingm You say "Actions and thoughts that consider the well being of others that can suffer."
The world's been there and done that. Google "utilitarianism."
And guess what - this theory doesn't work either. This theory falls down when people's ideas about their own wellbeing come into conflict. Which is RELATIVISM!
Wherever you go with morality, relativism is there to block the way!
@imapisces23 Infact it was in the 50s when the legendary philosopher Bertrand Russell, anticipating a new age of globalisation, commented on relativism:
"In this world which is getting more closely and closely interconnected we have to learn to tolerate each other, we have to learn to put up with the fact that some people say things that we don’t like."
We should all live by this principle; the world IS relativist, and that is the inconvenient reality of it.
@BasilFawlty4444 There are infinite realities (each human existing) to one actuality (which must be transcendent because that certainly didn't come from here) which is how all these infinite realities can agree that a wall is a wall and a tree a tree and so on. We can look for what else may be contained within this actuality of realities. If your a believer as you claim yourself to be you would understand that murder is wicked absolutely everywhere with no relativism but why? Because God is
The only giver I know is God, do you knoe somebody else :D. This is foolish. God goves the law, the moral law is a human invention, God doesn't deal with morals it's a human feature. God deals with right and wrong according to the law given. It's so simple, what you don't understand ?
Moral law giver can be society, and imho it is...many religious people disagree with some or many written laws in their scripture, which begs the conclusion that they are not following (only) moral laws that scripture promotes.
But this response leads to further problems: will our free-will be taken away when we enter heaven? Does God himself lack free-will? If he does not, then why should evil have come to pass due to it, since it may be presumed that god is never lax in his own righteousness (lest he have an evil nature himself)? If god himself does lack free-will, how could he have the power to grant it to us, and wouldn't it make us superior to god in that way?
@SSJ3Ulcer He is correct, the bible says god created evil. Believe it or not. Yet this heavenly father is after those who commit the evil HE created.. Makes sense, doesn`t it ?? LOL
How did this guy graduate high school without understanding that in order to disprove something you can assume it? He doesn't have even the most basic understanding of mathematics.
Great response. If there is good and evil apart from God, how do we determine what moral code to live by (Culture?Raltionalism?) Can logic lead us to do things that might seem evil? What if our society changes the defintion of a sociopath? Without a higher power, as you pointed out, we must admit that everything can be "up for grabs" if it seems rational and accepted.
@Amarkcalledme How can you define the behaviors of a "sociopath"? It's a new description just created in the past 40 or so years... Please list them for us...
@Amarkcalledme If you do not have an absolute to determine what is objectively good and what is objectively evil then your ethics are dependent on society. I am glad that you understand that murder, rape, and theft are wrong. However, without an absolute, such values will shift as time and situation shifts.
@Amarkcalledme continued... do you think that places like slums are completely filled with sociopaths? No, they are filled mostly with people like you and me. The only difference is that there are no social taboos limiting them from fulfilling their base, humanistic desires. They end up destroying themselves because they have no direction.
I'm amazed with the diverse amount of view points there are today- that would deceive even the elect if that were possible. So I'll continue to stand on solid rock which is the Bible, of which has been preserved for millennium. All other ground is sinking sand. Peace
Ravi is either confused, or he's dishonest. Getting some guy to concede that there must be a "moral law" doesn't meant that there is one, and it doesn't mean that therefore, there must be a "moral law giver." Morality comes from humans. That doesn't somehow mean that it doesn't exist. It exists because we invented it (like everything else we invented), and it's useful to us with or without a magical person making batches of "moral law" in a pot in the sky. Are people really buying Ravi's books?
why must there be a moral law giver for there to be a moral law? If you're saying that because there is something there must be a maker of this something than why not just say "do you believe things exist?" and take it from there. To not believe in a god is to believe that things can exist without a creator.
Down below in the ground,exist those whom already died............They are as dead as Democracy itself and yet,they are endlessly on search of that eternal guiding light ,-which is God.....And above in the surface we have those who belong in the world of the living,full of life ,healthy and strong and also they are desperately go on life looking for the obscurity of things in the darkness.
@TOLTECAAZTECA Whoa, not very Christian of you. You might want to think before you get so angry. So fucking what? there is no "what..." I was stating my opinion, the same way you had done. If that angers you, then you should either defend your position with a reason for what you said, or just accept that you're typing on a public comment thread, and your opinion isn't the only one allowed.
@TOLTECAAZTECA Ohhhh, so you're just someone who can't write very well. I see. Next time try making yourself clear in your original comment, and no one will take you out of context... "my friend."
@TOLTECAAZTECA Well, whether I'm a moron or not might be up for debate, but either way, I don't ever screw up a sentence as badly as: "Wasted of time with you." Good luck with that, genius. : )
@commenteh You're confused. "Evil" does exist, but it isn't a "real" thing. In other words, something is evil if we (humans) CALL it evil. It's a LABEL that we give to something that violates our sensibilities. There's no devil somewhere making "evil." It's just a term to describe what we don't like or don't want.
That doesn't mean we can just "do anything." We live in society together, and our actions affect each other. That's why we label things "good" or "bad." No "God" is required for this.
@commenteh Well, I have to say, that's part of your problem... until YOU can explain why you believe what you believe, and not rely on statements you hear others say, then you don't fully understand it.
I did watch the video you sent. He's an eloquent man, but he misunderstands the issue fundamentally. If you are curious as to why, let me know, and I'll send you a personal message, because here I can only type 500 characters. Good luck to you.
@instereovideos I believe That God is a higher the higher authority of me and that I am under his moral Law that he gave. That's what I believe.
And without a God, (In any way) there is no reason to be under the authority of anyone. For i imagine you believe too that all are equal and that we choose ourselves then what is Good and evil. Thus making anything we do permissible.
Any thing you would say is wrong with what i said you can either reply here or as a pm.
@drwickieno that is not true. Christianity is essential for morals. when you use morals you are borrowing from the Christian worldview. As an atheist you can not really explain morals. Out of a huge explosion how do you get morals. I assure you morals exist however a Christian God is necessary for morals.
@drwickieno that is not true. Christianity is essential for morals. when you use morals you are borrowing from the Christian worldview. As an atheist you can not really explain morals. Out of a huge explosion how do you get morals. I assure you morals exist however a Christian God is necessary for morals.
I actually can't believe that you said I 'dont have logic enough to READ the bible" hahaha. It's hilarious, I was even providing you with QUOTES!!!!! From the bible!!! And you stil think I didn't read it? You are too much lmao..
... You just don't like being shown the stupidity of your beliefs. btw, none of those religions have more reason to be true than the other. They can't all be right, but they CAN all be wrong. No. I am afraid you don't understand the meaning of contradiction. But I can follow your reasoning as I used to be like that once. "It's the bible so it CANNOT be a contradiction because it is the bible and its perfect!!"
... It doesn’t matter about the circumstances because the commandments don’t specify it, the way the English language works means it speaks generally. It might as well have said ‘Thou shalt not kill UNLESS in these circumstances.’ But it didn’t
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 Boy, you S U R E like to argue, Frankie! I think I'll leave you well enough alone and let God show you on His own terms, since you don't have logic enough to actually READ the Bible. The comment I made was based on my relationship with God, His power teaching me through His Spirit, while reading and studying. It's not a suggestion. It's reality.
...or taken out of context that I or you have already mentioned?
Yes but ‘Thou shalt not kill’ is a contradiction when the PUNISHMENT for homosexuality is death. It is true that ‘Thou shalt not kill’ does not provide a specific circumstance in which you should not kill. But the way the English language works when it says “thou shalt not kill’ would lead people to believe that it is talking generally.
God does not willingly afflict His own children. Wicked populaces, yes, they evoke His indignation and wrath. But He is tender, loving, and merciful to those whom seek Him and remain reconciled to Him. If one of His chosen is enduring circumstances, He is simply chastening them, and making them worthy of entrance into His Holy Kingdom. For the LORD will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance. —Psalm 94: 14
For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. —Hebrews 12: 10
Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? —Ezekiel 33: 11
I wait for the LORD, my soul doth wait, and in his word do I hope.
6 My soul waiteth for the Lord more than they that watch for the morning: I say, more than they that watch for the morning. 7 Let Israel hope in the LORD: for with the LORD there is mercy, and with him is plenteous redemption. —Psalm 130:5—8
8 And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities. —Psalm 130:5—8 For the LORD shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act. —Isaiah 28: 21
It is a contradiction because elsewhere in the bible, specifically the 10 commandments, it says 'Thou shalt not kill,' yet clearly God 'sanctions' stoning to death. That is a contradiction.
This guy is a master of "talking in circles".
jbryand 3 weeks ago
The moral law is not equal to good. That is really bad theology. God is not moral He is superior Virtue not equal to law in holy character. We are not here to stop the evil around us. The Spirit restrains evil we don't. Morality is not the definition of good. Example; the law says if a man picks up wood on the Sabbath day he is to be stoned to death. That is not good or justice, yet God gave that law to prove man powerless in flesh to obey.Good is a Person, God alone which is not defined by law.
polopowers1 1 month ago
@polopowers1 Sir. I like the fact that you are thinking but there are some errors here. You are combining "The Law" and the Traditions of the elders and teachers; they are not the same. If you look at the life of Jesus you will see how he pointed that out to the Pharisees and Sadducee. God has given each of us a moral law and it is impressed within each of us. The trouble is that it can be ignored and suppressed
jmoshkowski 2 weeks ago
@jmoshkowski Once the Spirit is given making new creations the moral law no longer drives us inside. But superior virtue of Christ greater than law.All law, traditions, it does not matter they have not the same virtue as Spirit life. All law is powerless to make man the best he could be before God
polopowers1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
all have sinned and greatly offended the holy God of the bible by breaking the ten commandments. the just punishment is death then hell. thats not Gods will. He sent forth His Son Jesus Christ to suffer and die on the cross paying for the law you broke in His lifes blood. now He commands you to repent turn from sin and trust alone in Jesus Christ for your salvation. please dont put this off.
mamainmancj 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cause of evil
watch?v=SZwVTZc1aa4&feature=channel_video_title
watch?v=SZwVTZc1aa4&feature=channel_video_title
watch?v=bz7SigS84Gg&feature=channel_video_title
ThePero20111 2 months ago
Comment removed
JogaHenryBonito 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Luke 16:29-31 says that even if someone came back from hell, and told you God was real and to repent, you would not believe him. Even if you knew God was real, and had all the evidence in the world, you still wouldn't bow down to Him. Want an example? Satan. He was God's right hand angel and he was cast from heaven. Why? Because he didn't want to follow God's ways and wanted to be God. It has nothing to do with reason/evidence, but with your will to submit to His name by trusting Him.
JogaHenryBonito 2 months ago
Comment removed
JogaHenryBonito 2 months ago
This guy is saying god causes evil.
timo86m 2 months ago
Ravi is correct in saying that good exists only in relation to evil and that for any statements to be made about "good" or "evil" there must have been a moral law giver. But he fails to recognize that there can be many different moral law givers. There need not be one, and it need not be divine. The human brain is perfectly capable of creating its own moral law. Because many people's moral laws are similar doesn't imply that there is only ONE moral law giver, and that we've never seen it.
ConradVonSchick 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Its a no brainer people. We know the difference between Good/ Evil. Because we are built that way. God has created us in his image. Laws of logic. Think!! O_O
God's Laws, so God is the Moral Law Giver!!! Always has and always will. He's God Almighty, don't you forget it. >_<
missluli33 3 months ago
void of any kind of substantial rebuttal to Ravi's articulation, people resort to name calling or what is professionally known as an ad hominem argument (attacking the persons character instead of the subject at hand). Whats new...
mbghill130 3 months ago
@mbghill130 Nice man! Could I be looking at the new Ravi or C.S. Lewis? :O
ThirdStreetSaint777 3 months ago
@ThirdStreetSaint777 lol, definitely not, but I appreciate the complement. honestly, i was opening my email expecting to be castigated by some atheist. thank you for the welcome surprise!
mbghill130 3 months ago
I identified about 7 shades of bullshit in this video. If he is the 'current reigning king' of apologetics then apologetics are in biiiiiiig trouble haha. What an idiotic argument.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 3 months ago
*claps hands again* Ravi Zacharias, Worlds #1 Reverse Psychology Idiot I've ever seen. :)
SXL017 4 months ago
his hair is killing me
xPray2die2dayx 4 months ago
If evil were not a reality there would be no opportunity for beautiful virtues like compassion, courage, mercy, forgiveness, and self sacrifice.
dunno194 4 months ago
So the only reason we have good is because god allows evil, kind of makes further problems for him don't you think? What good being would allow evil to flourish, it wouldn't be a good being it would be an evil one so where is the goodness to begin with? We must be the moral law givers, because we have to do what benefits all of humanity and we must take up guilt for mistakes as well.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 5 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence You're missing information. This is a temporary reality; in the future, God will permanently remove evil
dougmoerhoffman 3 months ago
@dougmoerhoffman But if evil is needed for free will according to christians you'll be puppets. That and this fleeting life actually has value because its the only one we have, an infinite life is pointless. Living in eternal ecstasy or agony for a finite life is ultimately pointless and insane because you'll be stuck in one place forever and eventually run out of things to do.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Evil is not necessary for free will. Free will makes evil possible--it does not require it.
dougmoerhoffman 3 months ago
@dougmoerhoffman so why couldn't god just make free will and eliminate evil from the equation?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence why can't you repent of your sins and turn to Christ who is waiting for you with open arms? I'm sorry friend, no man is more knowledgeable or wiser than God in how to operate this world. You want proof? We've been messing it up ever since we've been created. Plz my friend, ask Him with an honest heart. He's not looking for perfect ppl, He's looking for honest ppl who desire to live for truth, life, and love. Come as you are, and He will give you rest.
JogaHenryBonito 2 months ago
@JogaHenryBonito One just can't simply turn to god out of faith, not if one seeks truth and in order to find truth you must have reason and knowledge. All of what you are claiming is not known, we do not know what god is the real one. We can't know god's emotions, thoughts, abilities, or anything else. It is equivalent to sherlock holmes trying to find out that that sir arthur conan doyle wrote him into existence.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 2 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence This verse also tells us that if you do not read the Holy Bible with an honest heart, and you don't believe, then you will not believe in Christ. So just trust Him, He loves you greatly friend. Take some time to hear what He has to say. It will change your life.
JogaHenryBonito 2 months ago
@JogaHenryBonito I did read the bible with an open mind and when I did I was appalled by the ultra violence, confused by the characters reasoning and absurd events, and found a great number of contradictions as well as hypocritical actions that the people did within the very pages. The first thing the bible needs is an editor.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Well my friend this is my honest question to you. Do you desire to believe and trust in God but feel limited because you feel it requires one to abandon reason and knowledge? Or do you desire to prove that God is not worthy of your life and you desire to seek truth elsewhere?
JogaHenryBonito 2 months ago
@dougmoerhoffman it does require if and only if the man with the free will desires evil, then God who respects free will lets him have it, so in other words yes it requires it bec some people just want evil...
Megapolable 2 months ago
@dunno193
Well there is something call the laws of logic. Is where the human being has capability and instinct to determine something evil or good. For example how do u know rape is good or evil? Laws of logic. God is the moral law giver.
itiswritten77 5 months ago
I've heard Ravi follow this line of thinking a few times but I can't seem to find him explaining how you go from a moral law to a moral law giver. Any help?
dunno194 5 months ago
Comment removed
THEPOWERMETALNINJA 5 months ago
@dunno194
1. The moral law is absolute (It is absolutely wrong to kill someone even if we were all brainwashed to think it's good)
2. The moral law exists in person-hood only
3. Therefore, person-hood is intrinsic to the question: "Where does morality come from?" which means the answer must also have the value of person-hood in it
4. Thus, a person of absolute worth created morality in all persons (Because the moral law is absolute)
5. Therefore, God exists
Something like that. Hope tht helps!
THEPOWERMETALNINJA 5 months ago
He's in error. Christians are the ones assuming there is a moral lawgiver. But this moral lawgiver contradicts his own morals. I believe morals are created by people. I'm not assuming there is objective right and wrong. I'm just pointing out the Christian's moral contradiction. The problem of evil arises only because of the Christian's own claims about divine morality.
lovecarpetpythons 5 months ago
"What is your question?" MY question is "I'm not trying to disprove a moral law giver, I'm trying to disprove GOD. Why are you assuming the moral law giver must be God?"
templar19 6 months ago
@templar19 Because some bad people think that killing is good. ;)
356designer 5 months ago
@356designer So? THEY obviously would not make for appropriate law givers...let's find someone else. Why must that law giver be God rather than just a good person, or some good people, or even just NORMAL people?
templar19 5 months ago
@templar19 Because some people think that killers are the good people. ;)
356designer 5 months ago
@356designer *sigh*
templar19 5 months ago
In order to take the moral law seriously, it must be based on the intrinsic value of persons, which in turn must be based on the value ascribed to personhood by some particular person. If that person's idea of the value of personhood is to be considered binding on all people everywhere, rather than simply another of many subjective value judgements, then the person ascribing the value must be intrinsically worthy. They must be a person who is worthy of high value in and of themselves. God!
ILOVEHACKEYSACK 5 months ago
@ILOVEHACKEYSACK "The moral law must be based on the intrinsic value of PERSONS." That's an interesting claim, but I wonder if it's the ONLY thing that could have intrinsic worth. Utilitarianism, for example, treats HAPPINESS as intrinsically valuable. "The person ascribing the value must be intrinsically worthy of the highest degree." Well, the highest degree of intrinsic worth may not be that high...at bottom, all people may want to do is survive and reproduce (continued in next post)
templar19 5 months ago
@ILOVEHACKEYSACK which would make the moral standard universal but not very rigorous or demanding. Don't know if that makes sense...anyways, your argument is interesting, and MUCH better than the one Zacharias presents. BTW, I always like having discussions like this...feel free to PM me if you want to talk more.
templar19 5 months ago
@templar19 Thank you that no matter what worldview someone has, you can be respectful and still share your opinion. Your not a douce, and I love you for it lol. No homo.
ILOVEHACKEYSACK 5 months ago
67 people are not great thinkers as of 17-08-2011, 11:10.
swandike 6 months ago
@swandike His statements were completely illogical he in no way showed there was a moral law giver just because people believe in moral laws. i can believe that it is morally right to eat children. does this prove there is a moral law giver? i strive to live in peace with others because I desire to live at peace and be trusted. if others want to live in peace with me too they must strive to uphold this as well. pretty simple... I don't need a god to justify my morals.
TheAlphaPyro 6 months ago
@TheAlphaPyro what you have to understand is, the western world and even other parts of the world have always been shaped by religion. It is embeded in our history and you cant changed that. This is where morality started. This is also where most of our laws originated. Now what these atheists are saying, is to rule out religion which has always been with us. but they offer no alternative. if we rule out our current rights and wrongs, it will be chaos. people will do all sorts.
swandike 6 months ago
@swandike Morality did not start with practiced religion. Morality is part of our genetic makeup. One can see moral priority even in mice. people don't do good just because of religion they do good because of cops & a value for well being. Protective laws are put in place through democratic process. Tell me is the majority of educated society going to allow rape, murder and theft, etc? look at how healthy and crime free European nations that are mostly atheists or nonbelievers are.
TheAlphaPyro 6 months ago
@TheAlphaPyro who told you that lie, that europeans have crime free countries. and who told you that lie that morality is in our genetic makeup? The only crime free country I know of is singapore and even that they practise various religions in harmony. Look up peter singer and you will understand why we need religion. he is one sick atheist guy. Give a man the chance of freedom and see him degenerate into an animal. even the undiscovered people in the amazon have religion.
swandike 6 months ago
@swandike I didn't mean they are without crime or anything like that. It might even be argued by some that in a relative sense to no crime there is lots of crime there. I was simply stating that relative to other countries like those in africa or throughout most of the world they are pretty darned crime free and certainly don't fit your quote of "it will be chaos." i don't care about one guy. i can site plenty of religious people of any denomination u want that are horrible.
TheAlphaPyro 6 months ago
@swandike morality is very genetic in nature u can see moral decisions made throughout the animal kingdom such as those involving altruism in monkeys. That does not mean that religion plays no part in morality, it most certainly has. both good and bad. you also are not giving due credit to secular moralities influence on religion like women getting to vote and its important roll in abolishing the usa's slavery despite the fact that even the new testament condones it.
TheAlphaPyro 6 months ago
@TheAlphaPyro you are wrong my friend. If you can prove to me that our ancestors never practised religion I will believe you. if you can prove to me that religion was created in our generation I will believe you. Whether you like it or not, religion is embeded in our way of life for thousands of years. It has guided men to live normal lives. Picking sorry arguements like that means nothing to me. you probably dont even know what you talking about, so i will waste no breath on that.
swandike 6 months ago
@swandike "guided men to live Normal l lives" like strapping bombs to themselves, oppressing women and homosexuals, stopping lifesaving stem cell research, been used as a justification for war, justification for rape, justification for murder, slavery. A discerning individual would see that atrocities can be committed in the name or religion and justified even in its absence. So the discerning individual would put laws into effect to protect people because no matter what people will act out.
TheAlphaPyro 6 months ago
@TheAlphaPyro for every law made, they will always be law breakers. I stand for christianity that will not ask you to strap bombs and rape anyone. Homosexuality is evil, I still stand by that, think about being constipated and compare it to gay sex,lol, sorry for that analogy. Ethics are necessary to stop people creating sick creatures. like the mistaken invention of HIV while looking for polio vaccine. now do you know what atheism is offerring? read about peter singer, very sick.
swandike 6 months ago
@swandike R u arguing that reason doesn't call for ethics? If I want to discover something should I go about it in a way that can endanger others? How does this necessitate religion all it necessitates is a desire for self preservation.u think hiv was created while looking for a polio vaccine? As a science teacher i must say u need to do your homework. that hypothesis was rejected in studies found in Science magazine and Nature (2 of the most respected) in 2000. i will site articles if u want
TheAlphaPyro 6 months ago
@TheAlphaPyro do you think they will admit that they created HIV in an experiement?. who in his right mind will admit to it. can they afford the law suits that will follow? of course they will reject it. Look at how many people have been inffected and those that have died and the families destroyed. You need to also do your own analysis instead of accepting what people write in magazines. we all have brains to analyse anything. you dont have to be a scientist to know this.
swandike 6 months ago
@swandike They're not just magazines they are peer reviewed scientific journals A place where falsehood is shown through experimentation & analysis. it's not some opinion column with special interests. The genetic characteristics of the viruses used to make the vaccine are not comparable to hiv. To suggest some vast conspiracy has been holding back nearly all the scientific community full of people that would love the fame of being the righteous whistle blower is nuts what r yer sources of info?
TheAlphaPyro 6 months ago
@TheAlphaPyro I know that the SIV in monkeys mutated and found itself into human somehow and turn into HIV. I also know there are classfied documents for every conspiracy which will be released in the future. When it will harm the reputation of very powerful people, we wont know yet. I read scientific journals and magazines as open minded as I can. if we had access to every document on this planet, there wont be any conspiracy, will there?
swandike 6 months ago
@swandike it would be easy to show that polio played a role in this development of hiv. One could show that the polio virus is embedded in some part or form in hiv. The sequences of both viruses should be widely available. it's pretty cheap to sequence stuff yourself if u think the sequences have been changed as part of a vast conspiracy. people have even built their own sequencers for a couple grand with ebay parts. is there any evidence to suggest genetic similarity?
TheAlphaPyro 6 months ago
@TheAlphaPyro there are speculations all over the internet that certain strains are similar, but this truth is being rejected. if you read my post, u will agree with me concerning classified documents. u will agree we are being kept in a dark and we are allowed to know what we are supposed to know.
swandike 6 months ago
@swandike u never answered my question: is the majority of educated society going to allow rape, murder and theft, etc? Would it not try to stop harmful behaviors with laws? people do good because it feels good. They do good to have friendships, they do good to live at peace with others and so they can benefit from amnesty. Time will tell which one of us is right as more countries abandon religion. until then, we both can really only speculate. i'm an atheist yet a charitable loving person.
TheAlphaPyro 6 months ago
@logoRH I agree, or it could be argued that there is more than one god , there would have to be several gods all giving a different moral law for the same human action e.g. the moral age of marriage could be anywhere between 5 yrs and 25 years of age.
DrMontague 7 months ago
Thats whats up :)
GhostRunna1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It was this guys imaginary god who created the angel that would turn against. If he didn't know this angel would turn against him then this god cannot be omniscient as theists claim. If he did know this angel would turn against him but goes ahead and creates him then this god has to be evil. Try again Ravi old boy your argument sucks.
DrMontague 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So here is a simple question to all theists. God through Moses demanded that gays and lesbians be stoned to death.. According to the the person in the video this might be an evil act but good will come out of it. So let have some straight answers, would you stone gays and lesbians to death. Even if it's against secular law god is saying you must obey my laws.
DrMontague 7 months ago
absolute and therefore has a few absolute laws that if we wish to be absolute must follow. Your right about the world turning more and more relativist but is that right? Is God relative? I think in the sea of chaos which is life there must be a rock we can all hold on to that is absolute truth. There may be few of them, but the fact that there is even one is enough. For example when you say absolutely that there are no absolute truths, that in itself would be an absolute truth haha
imapisces23 7 months ago
@imapisces23 As a Christian, I personally live by Christian values, the most central being "love thy neighbour." I think that most (but not all) societies, Christian or not, develop such a stance, both out of neccessity, but also out of human nature.
But don't kid yourself. Violence and chaos are worshipped and glorified by many societies. Just look at the tribes of South America. We would consider their sacrifices to be barbaric today, but they were the social norm to the Aztecs.
BasilFawlty4444 7 months ago
@BasilFawlty4444 Life from non life is chemically and mathematically impossible! Atheists need to learn Homochirality!!
5tonyvvvv 7 months ago
@5tonyvvvv How would you know?
jfleminator 6 months ago
@jfleminator Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
5tonyvvvv 6 months ago
@jfleminator Not to mention that DNA is required for reproduction and yet the information encoded in DNA is required before DNA can execute replication. So the first thing required is something initially abstract which is instructions/information. How does an abstract concept or idea come into existence when it's not tangible. What is required is for thought to happen to create the idea first which requires intelligence. Atheist try to dodge this but really can't.
5tonyvvvv 6 months ago
@5tonyvvvv If what you're asking is how something abstract (information) can be used to create something tangible,just look at computers which can perform incredibly complex processess when essentially they are just a bunch of "open" and "closed" semiconductors. For a more insightful answer I would highly recommend chapter 2 of Steven Pinker's "How the Mind Works".
jfleminator 6 months ago
@5tonyvvvv On the other hand, if this is a "which came first: the chicken or the egg?" type question. Then the answer has to be DNA of course, because extremely complex proteins cannot spontaneously assemble. On the other hand, where does the DNA come from? How are the chemical reactions isolated? Not much is known about the origin of life. But to say that just because we can't explain exactly how it happened, that there must be a god is an appeal to ignorance.
jfleminator 6 months ago
@jfleminator HAHAHA!! Computers are DESIGNED!! They need programmers!! Computers need INFORMATION to FUNCTION!! You are so BLIND!! and INDOCTRINATED!!
5tonyvvvv 6 months ago
@5tonyvvvv If something fucks up in a program, the programmer changes it (hopefully), and the bad part is replaced. If something major fucks up in a organism's genetic code it will probably die before reproducing . The random mutations are the "trial" and the environment is the "error" with both effectively serving as the "programmer". This is a very basic concept of evolution.
jfleminator 6 months ago
@jfleminator You are assuming there is junk inside of a cell. Also from chemicals you have NOTHING to select from! Natural process can't even form a single protein!! You expect there to be genetic material..LOL Come on man! You just took Giant Leaps! From NOTHING! ZERO INFORMATION has Formed yet!
5tonyvvvv 6 months ago
@5tonyvvvv I don't know if i said anything about junk inside of the cell, but there is such a thing as "junk" Dna, or DNA that doesn't code for anything and basically just takes up space. Look it up. Also, as far as we know, EVERY single protein that has been discovered was formed by natural processes and not divine intervention. Ribosomes chain amino acids together by using code from mRNA to make protein. Before you continue this argument, I suggest you read up on some very basic biology.
jfleminator 6 months ago
@jfleminator There is no such thing as junk DNA, this is a term that has been falling out of use, because they are finding more and more uses for this so called Junk DNA, A cell is a City of unfathomably sophisticated complex biochemical systems!!! Also you still don't understand Homochirality, Amino acids never organize themselves! EVER!
5tonyvvvv 6 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Okay, so maybe alot of the "junk" DNA does useful things besides encoding proteins. But I understand where you are going know. Everything has a purpose. Is it not possible that some of that DNA is just fragments from DNA which our ancestors needed? Of course not. I suppose you're going to tell me now that the appendix and the tail bone have some divine purpose, that we are not aware of now because we can not fathom the infinte complexity behind an organ that literally does nothing.
jfleminator 6 months ago
@jfleminator The appendix is not useless, it provides our intestines with good bacteria, and to add digestion. The tailbone Myth as if we swung from trees in the past what a lie, babies today are born with small useless tails, they have no function, its just hanging skin.
5tonyvvvv 6 months ago
@5tonyvvvv The appendix theory is supported by inconclusive evidence. Its seems to explain the position of the appendix, its purpose for nomadic societies, and its diminished purpose for modern industrial societies. Also it seems to explain the lower rate of appendicitis in less developed countries. (How much lower I would like to know). And that could be caused by other things. Correlation is not always evidence of causation. IT COULD BE RIGHT. But what if it isn't?
jfleminator 6 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Why does it fail to explain that its susceptibility to failure seems to significantly outweigh its supposed benefits. A REAL test of this theory would be to have a two groups that are isolated and bacteria is purged from the intestines. But one group has their appendix removed and the other doesn't. Then you measure how quickly new bacteria are formed, what kind of bacteria, and what happens to the appendix. This is how you go beyond hypothesis and into the real world.
jfleminator 6 months ago
@jfleminator Hey man you have made a great case. Im not a PhD level Biochemist and I can confidently say most people on you tube have very little knowledge on the subject, atheist or christian, ill try to get back to you, I don't have all the answers, neither do evolutionists. Have a great day!
5tonyvvvv 6 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Okay, thanks for the interesting conversation. And as for homochirality, I don't know why sugars and proteins and such are arbitrarily one-sided. It reminds me alot of antimatter. Why is there only regular matter and all the antimatter as been obliterated. Who knows?
jfleminator 6 months ago
@imapisces23 You say "when you say absolutely that there are no absolute truths, that in itself would be an absolute."
Yep, you're not the first person to say that. It's called the "paradox of relativism." But it doesn't make relativism any less valid. The fact remains that human morality is vastly different to differing cultures, and this is absolutely true.
But, I repeat, in no way whatsoever does this invalidate relativism on a socio-cultural level.
BasilFawlty4444 7 months ago
@BasilFawlty4444 I agree with you about relativism. The guy in the video does not seem to recognize that morality changes over time and place i.e. they are social constructs e.g. what should the legal age of sexual consent be? He claims their is a moral law giver but he doesn't say who. The n notion of sexual consent changes over time and place. The same goes for marriage. So what does his imaginary god say the legal age of sexual consent should be.
DrMontague 7 months ago
@DrMontague Why does there have to be an Age of Consent ? There is a biblical view of being married and loving God. Marriage in the biblical view is about being fruitful and raising a family to love God. Man thinks he has a moral standard but every inclination of mans heart is wicked. Any morality is given by an unction of Gods holiness and goodness, mans ability to conform to a moral construct is impossible w/o Gods staying hand.
underman58 7 months ago
@underman58 Hypothetically speaking if you have had an a 6yr old daughter you wouldn't mind her marrying a 52 yr old man and consummating the marriage when she is 9 yrs of age. This is what the prophet Mohammad did. Some how I don't think you would approve even if your daughter agreed to the marriage. You would soon throw the god shit out with the dirty bath water.
DrMontague 7 months ago
Argument breaks down at if there is a moral law there must be a moral law giver. Pretty and fancy logic games, but no good logic.
hisnameisfrankie 8 months ago
Argument breaks down at if there is a moral law there must be a moral law giver.
hisnameisfrankie 8 months ago
As a Christian, I hate to have to destroy this guy's argument...
but please everyone, google "moral relativism", "relativism" or "cultural relativism."
Basically, this means that our morals and concept of good is derived from the culture and society in which we were brought up and conditioned, more simply defined as:
"Our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes." - Franz Boas, 1887
BasilFawlty4444 8 months ago
@BasilFawlty4444 lol that destroyed his argument? is the culture and society not based on moral law?
imapisces23 8 months ago
@imapisces23 Conceptions of right and wrong vary hugely from society to society. If by "moral law" you mean one single absolutely truthful law, then no, there is no such thing; there simply cannot be. Ravi takes a universal absolutist stance on morality. In reality, relativism reflects the varying human societies.
To refer back to Boas' description of relativism, our ideas of right and wrong "are only true" in our own society. Different cultures have different values, thus there is no one right.
BasilFawlty4444 7 months ago
@BasilFawlty4444 You call yourself a Christian but fail to see foundational Christian ideas. God wrote down on the 10 commandments our moral law which is absolute for every living human at any time ever. The fact that there is so much variation in our human societies today just goes to show how far off the simple straight path of righteousness we have strayed. Relativism may reflect humanity today, but the truth is not relative, which is why we see so much disharmony today.
imapisces23 7 months ago
@imapisces23 The fact that there is so much disharmony simply reflects the fact that there is no such thing as an absolute moral law, and in our far more interconnected world, these different world views are clashing.
Many philosophers have attempted to define absolute morality, but all have failed. The most notable absolutist was Immanuel Kant, who believed that actions were right and wrong "in themselves," at all times and places. This view fails when you must lie to protect loved ones lives.
BasilFawlty4444 7 months ago
@BasilFawlty4444 "attempted to define absolute morality"
I think most people would agree that morality actions that take consideration of other conscious creatures into account. Actions and thoughts that consider the well being of others that can suffer. That's a pretty simple one.
blaisingm 7 months ago
@blaisingm You say "Actions and thoughts that consider the well being of others that can suffer."
The world's been there and done that. Google "utilitarianism."
And guess what - this theory doesn't work either. This theory falls down when people's ideas about their own wellbeing come into conflict. Which is RELATIVISM!
Wherever you go with morality, relativism is there to block the way!
BasilFawlty4444 7 months ago
@imapisces23 Infact it was in the 50s when the legendary philosopher Bertrand Russell, anticipating a new age of globalisation, commented on relativism:
"In this world which is getting more closely and closely interconnected we have to learn to tolerate each other, we have to learn to put up with the fact that some people say things that we don’t like."
We should all live by this principle; the world IS relativist, and that is the inconvenient reality of it.
BasilFawlty4444 7 months ago
@BasilFawlty4444 There are infinite realities (each human existing) to one actuality (which must be transcendent because that certainly didn't come from here) which is how all these infinite realities can agree that a wall is a wall and a tree a tree and so on. We can look for what else may be contained within this actuality of realities. If your a believer as you claim yourself to be you would understand that murder is wicked absolutely everywhere with no relativism but why? Because God is
imapisces23 7 months ago
@imapisces23 "we see so much disharmony today."
Are you suggesting that history is peppered with time periods of complete harmony vs the 'disharmony' seen today?
blaisingm 7 months ago
@blaisingm You say "Are you suggesting that history is peppered with time periods of complete harmony vs the 'disharmony' seen today?"
No, quite the contrary. Infact, the fact that there has always been disharmony backs up the relativist stance.
But in this far more interconnected world, there is far more disharmony as expanding viewpoints come into conflict, as Bertrand Russell saw!
9/11, 7/7 and the war in the middle east are the most obvious consequences of differing viewpoints
= RELATIVISM!
BasilFawlty4444 7 months ago
@blaisingm Infact, you need only read Leviticus to see the vastly different moralities spanning over history, cultures and societies.
BasilFawlty4444 7 months ago
The only giver I know is God, do you knoe somebody else :D. This is foolish. God goves the law, the moral law is a human invention, God doesn't deal with morals it's a human feature. God deals with right and wrong according to the law given. It's so simple, what you don't understand ?
SomeUser9753 8 months ago
@SomeUser9753 soo who made the moral law then? you?
tylerpurugg23 8 months ago
Moral law giver can be society, and imho it is...many religious people disagree with some or many written laws in their scripture, which begs the conclusion that they are not following (only) moral laws that scripture promotes.
ouroboros2003 9 months ago
@CartesianTheist
But this response leads to further problems: will our free-will be taken away when we enter heaven? Does God himself lack free-will? If he does not, then why should evil have come to pass due to it, since it may be presumed that god is never lax in his own righteousness (lest he have an evil nature himself)? If god himself does lack free-will, how could he have the power to grant it to us, and wouldn't it make us superior to god in that way?
SSJ3Ulcer 9 months ago
My question, Dr. Zacharias, was if God exists, why does he allow evil to exist, and your answer seems to be that evil exists BECAUSE god exists?
SSJ3Ulcer 9 months ago
@SSJ3Ulcer He is correct, the bible says god created evil. Believe it or not. Yet this heavenly father is after those who commit the evil HE created.. Makes sense, doesn`t it ?? LOL
tallliza 9 months ago
@tallliza Yeah, what is that Isaiah 45:7? I'm aware of it. The way I solve the Problem of Evil, though, is I just simply say that god doesn't exist.
SSJ3Ulcer 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SSJ3Ulcer That`s the ONLY logical conclusion.
tallliza 9 months ago
How did this guy graduate high school without understanding that in order to disprove something you can assume it? He doesn't have even the most basic understanding of mathematics.
ljietuvis 9 months ago
Even if there's a "moral law giver" (and that's still very much an open question), that law giver is certainly not Yahweh. He's no example of morals.
drumrnva 10 months ago
@drumrnva The O.T. is a manual for disregard of human life.
tallliza 9 months ago
Moral law giver? Amazing how people manage to confuse themselves, and actually believe the shit they say.
notnilccm 10 months ago
@amarkcalledme
Great response. If there is good and evil apart from God, how do we determine what moral code to live by (Culture?Raltionalism?) Can logic lead us to do things that might seem evil? What if our society changes the defintion of a sociopath? Without a higher power, as you pointed out, we must admit that everything can be "up for grabs" if it seems rational and accepted.
byrondi1 10 months ago
Yes there is good and there is evil, and we do have a moral code by which to differenciate between the two, but it is not objective or infallable.
I don't know about anyone else but I don't recieve my moral and ethical values from god.
Anyone who needs god to tell why they shouldn't murder, rape and steal is by definition a sociopath.
Amarkcalledme 11 months ago
@Amarkcalledme Well said! I agree so much with every word you say. It's good to see it put so succinctly.
StrumstickJoe 10 months ago
@Amarkcalledme How can you define the behaviors of a "sociopath"? It's a new description just created in the past 40 or so years... Please list them for us...
14ATruther 10 months ago
@Amarkcalledme If you do not have an absolute to determine what is objectively good and what is objectively evil then your ethics are dependent on society. I am glad that you understand that murder, rape, and theft are wrong. However, without an absolute, such values will shift as time and situation shifts.
invisiblepurple 10 months ago
@Amarkcalledme continued... do you think that places like slums are completely filled with sociopaths? No, they are filled mostly with people like you and me. The only difference is that there are no social taboos limiting them from fulfilling their base, humanistic desires. They end up destroying themselves because they have no direction.
invisiblepurple 10 months ago
I'm amazed with the diverse amount of view points there are today- that would deceive even the elect if that were possible. So I'll continue to stand on solid rock which is the Bible, of which has been preserved for millennium. All other ground is sinking sand. Peace
ssleidl 11 months ago
@ssleidl Amen brother.
invisiblepurple 10 months ago
Ravi is either confused, or he's dishonest. Getting some guy to concede that there must be a "moral law" doesn't meant that there is one, and it doesn't mean that therefore, there must be a "moral law giver." Morality comes from humans. That doesn't somehow mean that it doesn't exist. It exists because we invented it (like everything else we invented), and it's useful to us with or without a magical person making batches of "moral law" in a pot in the sky. Are people really buying Ravi's books?
instereovideos 11 months ago
why must there be a moral law giver for there to be a moral law? If you're saying that because there is something there must be a maker of this something than why not just say "do you believe things exist?" and take it from there. To not believe in a god is to believe that things can exist without a creator.
zach9899 11 months ago
I don't understand why so much debate surrounds these ideas? Surely the reasoning has been sorted out and evidence either points one way or tother :)
People will still be sitting in front of their PCs or whatever and chatting about this in 500 or 1000 or 50000 years time :D
bm00001 11 months ago
Down below in the ground,exist those whom already died............They are as dead as Democracy itself and yet,they are endlessly on search of that eternal guiding light ,-which is God.....And above in the surface we have those who belong in the world of the living,full of life ,healthy and strong and also they are desperately go on life looking for the obscurity of things in the darkness.
TOLTECAAZTECA 11 months ago
@TOLTECAAZTECA Hey, I disagree with everything you just said.
instereovideos 11 months ago
@instereovideos So fucking what?.....I don't write what i write for your damn benefit.
TOLTECAAZTECA 11 months ago
@TOLTECAAZTECA Whoa, not very Christian of you. You might want to think before you get so angry. So fucking what? there is no "what..." I was stating my opinion, the same way you had done. If that angers you, then you should either defend your position with a reason for what you said, or just accept that you're typing on a public comment thread, and your opinion isn't the only one allowed.
instereovideos 11 months ago
@instereovideos And who the fuck said that, i am a Christian? No my friend i am not a hypocrite.
TOLTECAAZTECA 11 months ago
@TOLTECAAZTECA Ohhhh, so you're just someone who can't write very well. I see. Next time try making yourself clear in your original comment, and no one will take you out of context... "my friend."
instereovideos 11 months ago
@instereovideos Wasted of time with you....Good bye moron
TOLTECAAZTECA 11 months ago
@TOLTECAAZTECA Well, whether I'm a moron or not might be up for debate, but either way, I don't ever screw up a sentence as badly as: "Wasted of time with you." Good luck with that, genius. : )
instereovideos 11 months ago
lmao @ this fools reasoning on good and evil
onyxxx101 11 months ago
@onyxxx101 how is it foolish?
commenteh 11 months ago
@commenteh
bcus good and evil are subjective.
onyxxx101 11 months ago
@onyxxx101 Then why do we have laws about what is good and evil?
commenteh 11 months ago
@commenteh
where r these laws of good & evil located?
onyxxx101 11 months ago
@onyxxx101 If you kill people your considered evil. So there is a law to say you shouldn't kill or you will be punished.
I'm gonna say just about everywhere has that law no?
commenteh 11 months ago
@commenteh
No, your considered a potential threat to society, actually. Not "evil" per se.
But what if I killed someone accidentally? Is it still "evil"?
I'm pretty sure thats called manslaughter in that case and Ill be out before u know it.
onyxxx101 11 months ago
@onyxxx101 but why is it a threat if there is no evil so i would be doing anything wrong.
If there is no evil there is no way to say what is wrong or bad things to do.
This is all figuratively speaking.
commenteh 11 months ago
@commenteh You're confused. "Evil" does exist, but it isn't a "real" thing. In other words, something is evil if we (humans) CALL it evil. It's a LABEL that we give to something that violates our sensibilities. There's no devil somewhere making "evil." It's just a term to describe what we don't like or don't want.
That doesn't mean we can just "do anything." We live in society together, and our actions affect each other. That's why we label things "good" or "bad." No "God" is required for this.
instereovideos 11 months ago
@instereovideos watch?v=blw7crYC_Is I would suggest watching that. Jon lennox can explain it so much better then I can.
commenteh 11 months ago
@commenteh Well, I have to say, that's part of your problem... until YOU can explain why you believe what you believe, and not rely on statements you hear others say, then you don't fully understand it.
I did watch the video you sent. He's an eloquent man, but he misunderstands the issue fundamentally. If you are curious as to why, let me know, and I'll send you a personal message, because here I can only type 500 characters. Good luck to you.
instereovideos 11 months ago
@instereovideos I believe That God is a higher the higher authority of me and that I am under his moral Law that he gave. That's what I believe.
And without a God, (In any way) there is no reason to be under the authority of anyone. For i imagine you believe too that all are equal and that we choose ourselves then what is Good and evil. Thus making anything we do permissible.
Any thing you would say is wrong with what i said you can either reply here or as a pm.
commenteh 11 months ago
There is evil and cruelty in the world becasue their are no gods. No good gods would allow it.
Ozzyman200 11 months ago
They smuggle in their assumptions. :-))
RobbeyT 11 months ago
@drwickieno that is not true. Christianity is essential for morals. when you use morals you are borrowing from the Christian worldview. As an atheist you can not really explain morals. Out of a huge explosion how do you get morals. I assure you morals exist however a Christian God is necessary for morals.
mightytosave1000 1 year ago
@drwickieno that is not true. Christianity is essential for morals. when you use morals you are borrowing from the Christian worldview. As an atheist you can not really explain morals. Out of a huge explosion how do you get morals. I assure you morals exist however a Christian God is necessary for morals.
mightytosave1000 1 year ago
no sir, morals have been there long before religion (and ur god) came to being.
drwickieno1 1 year ago
This guy is a fucking moron.
CalvinCoooolidge 1 year ago
This is the most blatent denial I have ever seen. And I go to a Christian fellowship society every Friday, so that is saying a lot! :D hahahaha
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 year ago
I actually can't believe that you said I 'dont have logic enough to READ the bible" hahaha. It's hilarious, I was even providing you with QUOTES!!!!! From the bible!!! And you stil think I didn't read it? You are too much lmao..
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 year ago
... You just don't like being shown the stupidity of your beliefs. btw, none of those religions have more reason to be true than the other. They can't all be right, but they CAN all be wrong. No. I am afraid you don't understand the meaning of contradiction. But I can follow your reasoning as I used to be like that once. "It's the bible so it CANNOT be a contradiction because it is the bible and its perfect!!"
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 year ago
... It doesn’t matter about the circumstances because the commandments don’t specify it, the way the English language works means it speaks generally. It might as well have said ‘Thou shalt not kill UNLESS in these circumstances.’ But it didn’t
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 year ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 Boy, you S U R E like to argue, Frankie! I think I'll leave you well enough alone and let God show you on His own terms, since you don't have logic enough to actually READ the Bible. The comment I made was based on my relationship with God, His power teaching me through His Spirit, while reading and studying. It's not a suggestion. It's reality.
SwordofSpirit1 1 year ago
...or taken out of context that I or you have already mentioned?
Yes but ‘Thou shalt not kill’ is a contradiction when the PUNISHMENT for homosexuality is death. It is true that ‘Thou shalt not kill’ does not provide a specific circumstance in which you should not kill. But the way the English language works when it says “thou shalt not kill’ would lead people to believe that it is talking generally.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 year ago
God does not willingly afflict His own children. Wicked populaces, yes, they evoke His indignation and wrath. But He is tender, loving, and merciful to those whom seek Him and remain reconciled to Him. If one of His chosen is enduring circumstances, He is simply chastening them, and making them worthy of entrance into His Holy Kingdom. For the LORD will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance. —Psalm 94: 14
SwordofSpirit1 1 year ago
For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. —Hebrews 12: 10
Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? —Ezekiel 33: 11
SwordofSpirit1 1 year ago
I wait for the LORD, my soul doth wait, and in his word do I hope.
6 My soul waiteth for the Lord more than they that watch for the morning: I say, more than they that watch for the morning. 7 Let Israel hope in the LORD: for with the LORD there is mercy, and with him is plenteous redemption. —Psalm 130:5—8
SwordofSpirit1 1 year ago
8 And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities. —Psalm 130:5—8 For the LORD shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act. —Isaiah 28: 21
SwordofSpirit1 1 year ago
It is a contradiction because elsewhere in the bible, specifically the 10 commandments, it says 'Thou shalt not kill,' yet clearly God 'sanctions' stoning to death. That is a contradiction.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 year ago