How can I Evaluate a belief system?Ravi Zacharias explains!

[digitaljez]

I thought Ravi Zacharias was a christian?

[wirechair]

@digitaljez

nah, he's a christian.

[thescorpionking2020]

what a moron!!!!!!!!!

[thinginc]

He believes that babies are born with a sinful nature and there for damed to hall from conception!! that's not in the bible. it's the Calvinism by Edwin H. Palmer of the NIV on Psalms_Fifty_One_Five. it's a lie.

[Mekelsior]

@thinginc We are all born with a sinful nature, if babies are lost if they die is not up to me to decide and praise God for that. Hell is in any case a future event and not a place that exist right now, it is time to speak the truth on these matters of the immortality of the soul doctrine, purgatory, hellfire, and the commandments of God and the Sacredness of the 7th day that God made Holy. God is love, we should study Him from this setpoint, it is not love to torment people for an eternity.

[thinginc]

@Mekelsior well i still state you can not find sinful nature in the bible. only flesh. sinful nature is only in bibles fucked by Edwin H. Palmer. and he got sinful nature from Psalms_Fifty_One_Five that says:"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive

me." KJV. The subject of this verse is NOT the state or constitution of David's nature as a sinner at,

or before, his birth but Edwin H. Palmer uses this to prove a sinful nature!!!!!!!!

[Mekelsior]

@thinginc Hmm.. a bit confused as to the difference of sinful flesh and sinful nature? We are born without connection to God and are thus sinners even though we have not sinned at birth, the age of accountabillity in the Bible were 12 years old, until that point the parents were responsible for their children in a larger degree than afterwards, as far as my understanding goes anyway. If by sinful nature they mean unable to keep the commandments of God no matter what, then I disagree. =)

[thinginc]

@Mekelsior well flesh is bought at the supper market by the pound, if you cut your finger ya that's flesh. and as for what is a SN (sinful nature) i have no idea. if we have a SN when did we get it? did God make us with it? or did God turn Adams screws when he left the garden? The reason people like the idea of a SN is because i am no longer the cause of my sin. and when you find a Christan living in sin this is ALWAYS TRUE! man is not born sinful, only born with a broken relationship toGod

[Mekelsior]

@thinginc When Paul speaks of the sinful flesh he speaks of the sinfulness of man, the broken connection, the compulsion of sinning that is transgressing the Commandments of God. My understanding of having a sinful nature is that due to our lack of connection with God we will sin and thus have a sinful nature. God however have promised that by His Son that we will be changed and recreated into His image, this is being born again or process of sanctification, where the connection is restored.

[thinginc]

"Episode 3 - Sinful Nature?" search youtube and watch.

[thinginc]

@Mekelsior hey this answers you very well. search you tube: Was David born into a sinful nature? Bible Questions with Mi

[GekkeMalloot]

this guy is so smart

[UnluckyGambler]

ravi zacharias is a moron. this video is full of hypocrisy. just... wow! -.-

[theotherguitarmansam]

@UnluckyGambler i'm sorry, but you cant call a triple doctor and master theologist a moron. while it is perfectly fine not to beleive him, there is no need to insult him.

[UnluckyGambler]

@theotherguitarmansam i just did call him a moron, and there is a great need to insult him. ur right on one thing though, it is PERFECTLY fine not to believe him, cuz hes a friggin moron. ;]

[spandeyca]

What is truth and whose truth are yoiu going to believe? Are you going to believe the truth of muslims, jews, christians, hindus, budhists or an athiests? Every one of these reliongs have their truth. What makes you think that your brand of truth is the only truth that is true and all others truth is a false truth???

[TheSaffyone]

What more systematic contradiction than the trinity itself. While you are talking about logic, lets examin the trinity.

The father is God

Christ is the son of God

---------------

The father is the son and the son is father.

So God is the son of his own self and the father of his own self.

If you claim god got no limitation, then why will he need to spend 9months in a womb.

No space for the holy ghost

[Lightmane321]

@TheSaffyone The doctrine of the Trinity is a little deeper & more complex then you just described it. I think you know that. Also, it's not 'totally' correct to say 'The Father IS the Son & the Son IS the Father' for clearly there is a distinction between the two. Unlike most christians though, I do not consider this doctrine necessary for Salvation. Otherwise it would've been 'clearly taught' in scripture, and it's not

[TheSaffyone]

@Lightmane321 we agree with Christianity in lots of issues and we disagree mainly in the trinity.

[Lightmane321]

@TheSaffyone We? Who are 'we'?

[TheSaffyone]

@Lightmane321 Excuse my English as it is not my first language. I use basic form of expressions. We here is ment for Muslims. Agree should be for Islam. I should have said. Islam agrees with Christianity 

[evilmrglitch]

@TheSaffyone There are two ways that you can obtain a false conclusion: 1) The proposition is false, or 2) the logic was incorrectly applied.

In the case of the Trinity, you have misstated the proposition. I refer you to R.C. Sproul's Fundamentals of Christianity - The Trinity for a more accurate proposition. 

[dbes02]

@evilmrglitch The concept of "Trinity" is self-contradictory. 'God' isn't a rational concept until there is credible evidence - not circular arguments and arguments from ignorance.

[HermitintheRain]

@dbes02 for a finite mind to comprehend that which is eternal and outside the boundaries of time and space is illogical. a weak analogy, but an analogy nonetheless for the sole purpose of conveying the thought would be to make a 3 year old to understand all the dynamics of the sun. even if you explained every detail perfectly; to expect that child to comprehend it would be beyond reality.

[dbes02]

@HermitintheRain We know the sun is there - hence your analogy is useless.

[HermitintheRain]

@dbes02 my point in the analogy is: try then to explain how the sun operates in its higher details of physics to a child and then expect that child to show a perfect understanding of it. No one in their right mind would expect that. As for the evidence of God. I don't provide a defense for it. God has made it clear himself that he has provided all the proof that any soul needs. Those that deny it, are simply and bluntly put: liars.

[dbes02]

@HermitintheRain As you have already said that we can't know anything beyond time and space, and to think we do is illogical, any talk about a god (or fairies or whatever) is incoherent.

Someone who contradicts themselves is, simply and bluntly, an idiot.

[HermitintheRain]

@dbes02 your apparent inability or intentional ignoring of the whole of what is being said makes it clear that an intelligent conversation is not possible. you are welcome to take my words out of context if that suits your need to hold onto the delusion that allows you to deceive yourself about the witness of God that is in your very own conscience. I am no match for another man's conscience. May God be merciful to you in delivering you from the darkness you are clinging so tenaciously to.

[dbes02]

@HermitintheRain Again, if all you can do is contradict yourself, then you reveal yourself as a buffoon. You were asked for evidence but just come back with fallacy after fallacy. Maybe Allah will give you just the tiniest bit of evidence.

goddesses and fairies and gods and pixies all belong in the same bin. (Trash can of course.)

[dbes02]

@HermitintheRain And as you haven't provide any evidence but just spewed out the usual inanities about your particular magic man in the sky, which begs the question, and which is indistinguishable from any fairy tale, it is you who is the liar.

[HermitintheRain]

@dbes02 any god that can be defined and understood fully by a finite mind would be anything but God. Yet the weakness of the analogy was in the fact that God, according to his will, has made us able to understand what he wants us to understand about him. One of the many aspects that he has made us to understand is that God is One in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He didn't explain himself, he has deemed that all we need to know is that it is so.

[TheSaffyone]

@evilmrglitch Neither has happened 1) Trinity is a logical contradictions because it means 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 2) some clover Christians will tell, it is 1 X 1 X = 1 Therefor 3) it means The father or Christ or the holy Ghost = God it doesn't mean 4) The father and the son and holy Ghost = God 5) Because (and) = + 6)( or ) = X Trinity doesn't make sense because the one God is one, how did you make him three. Three persons make the one God or Do you have something less to explain. .

[roryphelan]

if your are 'checking out a belief system for flaws' is that not based on a subjective evaluation.

[roryphelan]

is that not potentially deconstruction?

[AJballer]

If a lion tackles and eats a gazelle, there's nothing evil about that. If it does the same to a human child, that's not evil either. Nothing that lion can possibly do is evil. it is an animal that lives under the laws of nature. Everything it does is natural, unless we take it out of nature and put it in a cage. We live by Gods laws, that's where morals originate from. The 10 commandments. If we were animals(descendants of apes) we would have no concept of morality or law.

[spandeyca]

@AJballer Yes the morality that came from god to christians through the bible that treated black and brown people like animals and allowed to kill millions in the name of christianity though jesus never taught any of this yet christians derived these ideas from the bible. Morality did not come from god, bible or christians it evolved over the centuries from black slavery to black president....

[AJballer]

@spandeyca Man I don't think so. If those people lived by the bible's teachings 100% they wouldn't treat anybody bad. I don't know about the Quran but the bible tells us not to kill, steal, fuck someone else's wife, be jealous, be greedy, and to treat others as we would like to be treated. It's not my fault someone can own a slave and not think that they are morally fucked in the head. people have slaves(often sexual) nowdays too, they are pyschopaths just like 1700's slave owners.

[spandeyca]

@AJballer Your commet tells me how much knowledge you have about christianity and the bible. I suggest you read the bible and christian history above all listen to the kind of language you have used in your comment. If you think you are a TRUE christian than imagine how many more lunetics are/have existed over the centuries who consider themselves as true christian as you are?

[AJballer]

@spandeyca Great, you're loosely calling me a lunatic. I said fuck two times, wow like you've never heard it before. The fact that I say "fuck" instead of freak or darn or some other pointless word makes me a bad person? TRUE christian means I believe in Christ, and that belief somewhat steers my actions toward something better.

[Lightmane321]

@AJballer Ephesians 4:29 'Let no filthy talk be heard from your mouth, but only what is good for building up people and meeting the need of the moment. This way you will administer grace to those who hear you.' (ISV)

I'm not judging you. I'm just as guilty as you are. Just letting you know what the bible says.

[AJballer]

@Lightmane321 Yeah, I know the way I talk is horrible. However, my actions are usually not. Just like everyone else, I'm not perfect in any way.

[mysanitysgone]

besides looking for the truth, how about looking for honesty first, u might find that first. just try it, it's the only thing religions keep over looking.

[seaaris571]

well you have a point, but truth goes beyond honesty.you can be honest but it does not neccesarily telling the truth. Jesus said that he is the way the "truth "and the life.

[mysanitysgone]

it can go both ways depending on how u look at it. so if someone says that they r the way the truth & the life, way do u have to believe them, because alot of people have claimed alot, way should we follow them with no question & no will power following such a statement. is it the statement or who say the statement that's important?

[tim888222]

Very good - seek the truth.

[EmceeLorder]

A bodyguard of lies!

[dbes02]

Exactly - we see religious beliefs protected by a bodyguard of lies.

[dbes02]

Which particular view are you referring to? 'Rational explanation is not the interest of an atheist world view.' How does that make sense? 'The atheist claims a void and emptiness of non belief.' BELIEF is the psychological state in which a person holds a proposition or premise to be true. So your position is nonsense. You have no legitimacy in ruling that someone has no beliefs. One problem is that you seem to use belief to only mean religious belief. This is a fallacy of equivocation.

[TheOtherTrueGod]

Zacharias shoots himself in the foot - so scientific evidence about the age of the Earth, cosmology, contradicts Genesis. None of the creation myths and the various stories in the first chapters of Genesis, including A&E, Flood, are supported by evidence. They are CONTRADICTED by evidence. So a worldview based on this is nonsense.

So yes, verification is important. Thanks Zacharias.

[dbes02]

And now you carry on contradictions about absolute truth? I didnt say that there are no absolute truths - all Im saying is that there is no absolute morality. You confuse a moral instinct - a sense of right/wrong - with absolute morality. Whereas morals are human inventions. By definition, the statement "there is no life after death" is true. (Death is the opposite of life.)

[stifflertubes]

No doubt we have a human instinct but this is not what im referring to by the moral law. An instinct is really an impulse/desire to do something but feeling a desire is different from knowing you ought to do something.One generally feels two desires being when seeing someone drown. An instinct to risk your own life and help, and an instinct for self preservation, which is usually the strongest, but also a third thing which tells you you ought to follow this instinct and suppress the other.

[stifflertubes]

The third judges over the two impulses and decides which should be encouraged if you like. Similar to how a road sign is not a road itself, but it tells you which road you ought to take. The moral law is our road signs telling us which roads to follow. So it doesnt seem logical that the moral law can be part of our human or herd instincts.

[dbes02]

The third judges? Now you are talking nonsense. All you're doing is describing human reason - our decision making. Your analogy with a road sign is irrelevant. Human reason is an innate cognitive ability.

[stifflertubes]

Might I add, if the moral law was one of our instincts, then we should be able to point to some instincts as being good as it is in agreement with the rule of right behavior. But this is not the case, there isnt one impulse or instinct which we generally will not suppress or encourage at some stage. A soldier will have to encourage the fighting instinct when fighting, a mother's love for her children may have to be suppressed if it leads to unfairness to other children.

[dbes02]

I don't say that moral law is instinctive. You're just making up a silly use of the term 'law'.

So what if instincts get overruled by other instincts. Your comments about soldiers and mothers simply says there is no absolute morality. You're arguing against yourself. Which just goes to show the incoherence of your position.

Instincts are guides - we can point to a mother caring for children as an instinct.

\Who said anything about objective morality

[stifflertubes]

//I don't say that moral law is instinctive//

Dbes02, you are clearly contradicting yourself. Or perhaps it is a classic sidestep? On the one hand you say our moral right/wrong is derived from instinct, but on the other hand you say its not. Which is it? And making claims such as you making up a silly use for the term does not make your position any truer.

But morality is part of animal instinct/behaviour.

[dbes02]

No contradiction. We have a language instinct but we learn a particular language. We have moral instinct - but what is considered moral can differ widely. My claims are perfectly valid. Instinct, reason, the group, all influence morality.

Or are you a genetic determinist?

[stifflertubes]

you making a statement that "morality is part of animal instinct/behaviour" and then you say that its not. Is that not a contradiction?

[TheOtherTrueGod]

There can be a biological foundation for morality, in our instincts (we're not blank slates). And this most certainly influences moral codes. But specfic moral coded aren't genetically coded. In the same way that a specific language is not genetically encoded.

Humans are primed to learn about the group they grow up with - which includes language, moral code, etc.

[dbes02]

Yes, this is the approach I have been taking - the biological foundation, and the development of moral codes.

[dbes02]

No, didn't say it was not.

[stifflertubes]

Yes you did. I do believe you said the below? Please dont erase the comment just yet.

And I quote, "I don't say that moral law is instinctive."

[dbes02]

I haven't deleted any comments to you. And if you were being honest you would quote the full context of what I wrote:

"I don't say that moral law is instinctive. You're just making up a silly use of the term 'law''"

There is no moral law.

So please be honest in how you quote someone.

[dbes02]

stifflertubes, it's interesting that you would take a line which implies genetic determinism, especially given the necessity to Christianity of human free will.

Maybe this will illustrate my point: When a male lion takes over a pride it eats the cubs. Instinct. There's no right/wrong value to it. Now what if the lions decided - no, that's not right, the new rule is that no males shall kill cubs. But that's the type of thing that can happen with human morality - not blindly following an instinct.

[stifflertubes]

//Who said anything about objective morality.//

So objective morality does not exist according to atheistic naturalism? Again, if objective morality does not exist, then how can one make any moral judgment of any kind on an individual? How can we claim the Holocaust to be wrong?

[dbes02]

Again you go with this non-sequitur: we cant make moral judgements unless there is absolute morality. It can just be subjective. I dont like rap music therefore there must be objective musicality? Yes, we can have instincts to find certain sounds pleasant. But just think about how completely different musical tastes can be. Having your own opinion on something says nothing about objectivity. Such a claim is fallacious.

[dbes02]

And to bring atheism into it is a circumstantial ad hominem - yet another fallacy on your part.

But since you bring it up - different religions have different moral codes. They all think they are the true way, sanctioned by their own god or gods. This is now evidence for objective morality? Well where is it?

[helpmetony]

define "nature"

[dbes02]

A worldview that explains other worldviews?

The only one that works, without systemic contradiction, is that the world operates on naturalistic processes, that the physical universe originated through mechanistic, quantum fluctuations and an inflationary bigbang, that everything formed through the forces of nature, that life started through naturalistic processes, that it evolved by evolution through natural selection, and that no supernatural teleological processes exist.

[openair3]

dbes02, I did use the Bible to answer his questions to show that there aren't Systemic Contradictions within the teachings of the Bible. In a naturalistic worldview I'd like your opinion on some or all of the following questions, please: 1. Purpose/Meaning of the Universe and Life? 2. How do we objectively define Right and Wrong? 3. What is the Reality of what happens after death? 4. Is there Absolute Truth? This is not a challenge, just would like a naturalistic worldview perspective. Thanks.

[dbes02]

openair3, firstly, you cant look at one religion in a vacuum. A world in computer game can be logical and have no contradictions doesnt make it real. Multiple, contradictory religions exist, more consistent with them being purely superstitious make-believe (or multiple gods?) than a supernatural reality. There are further problems with the concept of the god of classical theism the Problem of Evil is fatal to the concept of an all-powerful, all-good god.

[stifflertubes]

As the speaker said the law of non-contradiction is a test falsehood not necessarily for truth. On the contrary t the problem of evil is fatal antitheism not to theism. The question of evil invokes moral law which is what you are trying to disprove. If there is no God there can be no moral law and without a moral law there can be no good and evil and with no good and evil the question really becomes illegitimate when asked from a non-theistic worldview. Some are even denying evil.

[dbes02]

Why is evil fatal to antitheism? Evil is a value judgement applied by humans. Why does it invoke a moral 'law'? If you mean a moral sense, then fair enough, but what is this 'law'. What people consider is evil may differ substantially. if you're talking about laws of human societies, then the term moral law could be used. But morality is part of animal instinct/behaviour. Why would I deny that? There is a biological foundation to morality - I see no need for a 'god' in that.

[stifflertubes]

"Evil is a value judgment applied by humans." If that be the case then it would make no sense in applying one's value judgment to anyone, least of all to God. Who's to say that the western value judgement is any better that that of Nazism? There simply has to a standard, apart from "good" or "evil", by which all mankind can differentiate between "good" and "evil".

[stifflertubes]

"What people consider is evil may differ substantially." The perceived differences are not as substantial as is it seems. The reason for this is, we sometimes confuse the moral law for beliefs of facts.

[dbes02]

I don't see how a moral law is part of nature - nature is amoral. But humans apply values to actions/events, based on moral instinct and group norms. The issue of good/evil is perfectly legitimate in a naturalistic context. A product of a natural, biological brain.

[dbes02]

1) Purpose of life pass on genes. Meaning of life all sorts of things, up to the individual. To raise children, to climb a mountain, to listen to as much music as possible.

2) Moral sense developed by evolution through natural selection. What we see as right and wrong varies between cultures and over time. Morality is a human invention. There is no objective morality.

3) Death is the end of life. 'We' are a product of our brains no working brain, no mind, no consciousness, no me.

[stifflertubes]

1. Point taken, one can find meaning in all sorts of things but one has to admit, the idea that a father and his entire family would ultimately return to primordial slime from whence it came, doesn't really give one a purpose for living? Like Jean-Paul Sartre said if death is the end of my suffering then the biggest question remains, why not just commit suicide. Bertrand Russell said, life is one of unyielding despair and any attitude to the contrary is a seduction of the mind.

[dbes02]

Who is saying anything about returning to slime?

So why don't we all commit suicide? Because evolution has built life forms that have strong instincts to survive. I would have thought that the concept was quite simple.

Yes, we have evolved a moral instinct - and research across cultures have shown 5 dimensions of human morality: care, fairness, loyalty, authority and sanctity. Which leads to substantial differences in moral codes between cultures.

[stifflertubes]

2.These seaming variations are not as vast as its thought to be. Also interesting how many would refute the existence of objective morality but moments later turn around and complain of something done towards them that was unfair. For example, how can anyone ever say, It is unfair that I have to pay for the meal, or Thats not fair, I was hear first, or Show me yours, I showed you mine. All of the above assumes the individual is aware of a peculiar behavior which the person ought to folow

[stifflertubes]

And the strange thing is every individual from a diversity of cultures somehow knows that there is a manner or law which every individual ought to follow. If cultural evolution is the answer as such then how can anyone make any moral judgment of any kind on any individual from a different culture? If one culture is morally more advanced than another, then compared to what? How could we make moral indictments on Saddam Hussein, etc? So even this betrays a knowledge of an objective moral law.

[dbes02]

There is no 'ought tos' in nature. There is only the 'ought tos' that we invent. We can set standards. We can set moral principles. And that's what we see. Yes, we are influenced by our instincts/emotions. We have mirror neurons which push us to empathise with the others. And we have the faculty of reason which we can use in decision making.

But we don't see the same right/wrong across cultures, in the way that we would apply the laws of physics. In reality we see quite different standards.

[stifflertubes]

I dont see how that arrives at an objective morality.

I would submit that it's remarkably similar across cultures. Also the moral rule of behavior if you will, is not the same as laws of physics. We cannot choose to disregard the law of gravity but I can choose to disobey the law of morality.

Again, the moral right/wrong cannot be a human instinct.

[dbes02]

Exactly where are moralities remarkably similar across cultures? People kill each other about differences in morals. Some of my neighbours think homosexuality an abomination, it used to be a crime. In earlier times the Churches supported slavery - the Biritish Empire was built on it - so don't sprout nonsense about everyone being similar.

You confuse moral instinct - a sense of right and wrong - with moral code, where specific behavioiurs are deemed moral within the group.

[stifflertubes]

//Exactly where are moralities remarkably similar across cultures?//

Are things such as unselfishness, truthfulness, courage and honesty not valued cross culturally?

[dbes02]

Bu what is actually considered truthful for example: truthfully revealing a Jew to the Nazis? Or lying about the Jew hiding in the attic?

Research shows 5 common dimensions of moralities across cultures - care, fairness, loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Different moral codes differ markedly across the cultures.

[stifflertubes]

This is exactly my point. We all, cross culturally, feel that we ought to be fair, caring, loyal, etc. Basic moral right/wrong is in question here, not moral codes.

[dbes02]

You don't seem to understand what a DIMENSION is - it has TWO directions. So the CARE dimensions runs from LESS care (i.e., harm) and MORE care. Liberal moralities score high on the care and fairness dimensions. Monolithic ideologies which include many religions as well as Stalinism and Nazism score very high on the authority and purity dimensions.Get the picture?

Basic right/wrong is what we make it within a morality. We put the values on things. And it's up to us to justify them.

[stifflertubes]

Your argument of people killing each other due to morals only serves to prove objective morality. Why would anyone need to fight over moralities if objective morality didnt exist? People clearly believe their sense of morality to be closer to an objective standard which they believe everyone else should know.

[dbes02]

Just because someone thinks they're better doesn't say anything about objectivity - just says the person is being subjective.

But someone setting a standard says nothing about there being objective moral truths. Just because someone thinks something doesn't make it true. You're making an absurd claim.

[dbes02]

To say that we can set moral principles based on reason and evidence of outcomes Is the only way to get to an objective morality - transcending the individual. And that is what we see in the way codes are formed around the five dimensions of human morality: care, fairness, in-group, authority and purity.

What is your objective moral law? Dont tell me it's in the Bible.

[dbes02]

So how is morality objective? How can we say that a moral is a statement of fact in the same way that water is H2O is a statement of fact? But just because I might think that something I don't like is unfair is still not objective morality. It's just my attitude. Slave owners didn't see anything wrong with slavery, including the Churches which supported it. But the slaves though otherwise.

We have instincts for all sorts of things - but we can't talk about nature in terms of objective values.

[stifflertubes]

Thats as objective as can be. Your fellow neighbor knows full well, same as you do, what is fair or unfair. About the slavery bit, again, we shouldn't confuse factual beliefs for the moral law.

[dbes02]

No, my neighbour doesn't know as full well as me. My neighbour doesn't think twice about psychologically abusing their children with religious nonsense. My other neighbour thinks homosexuals should undergo treatment to change them. Another neighbour thinks that two people living together out of wedlock are in sin. Yet another neighbour thinks it's wrong to eat animals.

Slavery isn't a factual belief - it's a moral position. Moral statements are not facts about the world.

[dbes02]

Please show me the moral law - you've provided no coherent argument for your position. You misuse the term 'law' to smuggle in your idea of something that has been set for humans, yet the examples you give contradict it. You confuse human reason for some sort of spiritual voice telling us what to do. You claim everyone is similar when clearly morals differ widely. Even you mentioned Saddam Hussein. How could we possibly equate the morals of a secular society with that of an Islamic one?

[stifflertubes]

3. Exactly the point. This wouldn't console anyone on their deathbed. If the ultimate purpose of life is one of total meaninglessness, then what is the point of even living in this suffering world.

[dbes02]

You seem to be confusing our moral instinct with objective standards. But why do you go on about consolation on the deathbed? Now you're simply appealing to emotion (a fallacy of logic).And then you again carry on about meaningless in life. Just because there might not be an ultimate meaning, why can't we give our own meaning and purpose?

[stifflertubes]

Was not appealing to your emotions, i can assure you, was merely pointing out how even atheistic protagonists recognized how unlivable the atheistic philosophy can be.

[dbes02]

All you're doing is appealing to emotion (but certainly not mine) - deathbed consolation, unlivable, why live. But just because you might want or need some transcendent meaning of life, it doesn't make it true. Delusions can work wonders, but they would still be delusions.

At least you now seem to accept that it isn't all a false dilemma, black and white, the either-or fallacy - you now refer to how unlivable it CAN be.

I prefer the intellectual honesty of going with the evidence.

[stifflertubes]

I do believe Jean-Paul Sartre and Bertrand Russell was intellectually honest when they said is CAN be unlivable. And I do not see the fallacy in the either-or logic. About the evidence, I have not seen any evidence that there is no transcendent meaning of life.

[dbes02]

You miss the point - CAN be unlivable. Doesn't say MUST be. But then people believing in God may think life unlivable too.

As for evidence, there's plenty of evidence for naturalism. You can't go off negative evidence - you can't say unicorns t exist just because no one has shown they don't exist. You have to come up with positive evidence.

[stifflertubes]

It's presumptuous to believe the theist should be the only one to provide evidence. Even if the theist couldn't muster enough evidence for transcendent meaning to life, it still wouldnt show that there isnt. Its exactly what you referred to, negative evidence.

[dbes02]

I have provided evidence. We can see evidence for the biological foundation of morality. We can see a biological brain at work. We can measure the dimensions of morality. We can see the contradictory moralities in different religions, and between sects of a religion. There is a rational explanation for it.

Sorry, but if you are going to claim a transcendent meaning to life you have to present a rational position - requiring evidence. All sorts of things COULD exist.

[rusty2029]

What evidence do you have for your view? Rational explanation is not the interest of an atheist world view. The atheist claims a void and emptiness of non belief? Systemically I can reject any atheist who does not share a burden of proof. The atheists claim non-belief as a sucking vacuum at the center of atheism. No one needs evidence if there core and center is a bankrupt void of non-belief.

[dbes02]

Disbelief in X does not demand burden of proof. Someone can claim that fairies exist, and therefore turn me into an a-fairiest. I can't help it if people make things up. People make up all sorts of nonsense.

[stifflertubes]

Yes, my apologies, I get the picture, a very vivid picture of incoherence and quite frankly nonsense. You moved from morality (moral law, moral right/wrong) being instinctive, to none instinctive, to cognitive reasoning, back to instinctive and now to DIMENSIONS, which is exactly the speakers point.

You clearly do not understand the difference between INSTINCT, REASONING and a MORAL IMPERATIVE.

[dbes02]

I didnt move from any "moral law". Your concept of "moral law" makes no sense. There is no moral law of the universe or whatever.

My account is perfectly coherent. Morality has a biological foundation. We have a moral instinct. There appear to be 6 dimensions of human morality across cultures.

And a cursory look at different moralities show that SPECIFIC MORALS differ substantially. What is GOOD means different things to different people. You have a lot of difficulty understanding this.

[stifflertubes]

How does any of the above negate transcendent meaning? Just because my brain works does not necessarily suppose there's no transcendent meaning to life. You are providing logical arguments for an existential question.

[dbes02]

Now you introduce another of term: moral imperative. So what is this now?

Maybe there is transcendent meaning to life. But unless you can show evidence to support, its just a concept.

Evolution by natural selection provides a process to account for morality. And it has empirical evidence. It's rational.

On the other hand, religious beliefs have been shown time and time again to be nonsense, contradicted by evidence. Non rational.

[dbes02]

4) Absolute truth? About what? Some things can be true by definition. Others things are true but cannot be ascertained 100% (eg, do fairies exist). More important to look at things rationally, taking into account the evidence.

However, for some things, absolute truth is irrelevant - what is (fact) does not necessarily lead to what ought (value), which is defended by reason or appeal to our moral sense, not facts. Nature is inherently a-moral, to guide society's moral choices.

[stifflertubes]

4 Is your comment that there is no absolute truth true?Is your statement that there is no life after death true?Is your comment that pain has a biological foundation only, true? If your answers are Yes then that proves the point that absolute truth do exist and your proposition that it doesnt is wrong. If your answer is No, then what are you really saying?This is the problem, you are denying an absolute while at the same time positing one. Its an absolute denial in the absolute, absolutely.

[dbes02]

stifflertubes, be very careful in the way you read comments. I never said that "there is no absolute truth ", yet you claim I did. Making false claims is fraudulent. If you don't understand what someone is claiming than ask for clarification. But don't make things up.

[stifflertubes]

So you agree that absolute truth do exist? My humble apologies dbes02.

[dbes02]

I you read my comments properly you would see that I wrote:

"Some things can be true by definition. Others things are true but cannot be ascertained 100% (eg, do fairies exist)."

So where do I say there is no absolute truth? The challenge is in finding it. Religious belief doesn't get above the level of fairies.

[dbes02]

Iif you are going to make a claim about something, you need to present a coherent, rational position. Rational, as in proportioning a claim to the grounds for holding it. Look at the evidence. If you claim that a person survives death in some sort of personal way, the evidence is against it. In fact the evidence strongly supports that "you" are a product of a physical brain. And if you divide the brain, there's two of you. Dualism as a theory of the mind is untenable, irrational.

[nicoforjesus]

Hi dbes02

I love you logic let swim together in deep ocean of logic and reason.If you may.

[stifflertubes]

The law of non-contradiction is a law of logic, not a worldview.

Evolution has two sides namely science and philosophy. As a science its plausible, but as a philosophy it begs many questions to be answered. Like origins for example, the bigbang does not explain why we exist. Stephen Hawking said what we have is the what but what we need to know is the why. The naturalistic response would be that there is no meaning for our existence.How does naturalism explain pain, suffering and evil?

[dbes02]

"The law of non-contradiction is a law of logic, not a worldview. " Who said it was a worldview as such?

Yes, biological evolution is plausible - in fact it has a mountain of evidence to support it. But why would I think that it answers everything? Like the origin of the universe, which isn't biological. Why does there need to be a 'why' to our existence in sense of an intent for it to happen? Why can't we just see that there can be a 'how' and leave it there?

[stifflertubes]

//Why does there need to be a 'why' to our existence in sense of an intent for it to happen?// In other words life has no meaning? With regards to the "why", it see it as common sense to know "why" anything exists, any form of technology for example. Not knowing the "why" could ultimately lead to misusing or abusing the apparatus. Strange how we can see the importance of knowing the "why" with everything else but not apply the same reasoning to more important things in life.

[dbes02]

Just because you want to know 'why' doesn't mean there has to be an ultimate why.

Yet I said that we can make our own meaning in life so your ranting is irrelevant.

Why can't we apply value judgements? That doesn't stop us from setting standards.

Yes, the perceived differences in evil can be substantial. There is no evidence for absolute morality. You haven't provided evidence for this 'moral law' of yours. Again, your ranting is without substance.

[dbes02]

Why can't I see a meaning to my existence in a naturalistic world? Why does there have to be meaning at some sort of metaphysical level?

Pain has a biological basis, emotions have a biological basis, suffering has a biological basis in emotions and through the biological foundation of morality. And good evil, justice. fairness, etc are concepts within our morality. All from a natural world and a natural brain.

I don't see what the problem is.

[evilmrglitch]

@dbes02 Okay, so I am confused... Which of the two forms are you presenting?

1. The universe created itself from nothing (ex nihilo)?

2. The universe has eternally existed (infinite series of events)?

The first statement is logically absurd, because it would have to BE before it WAS.

The second denies known laws of science: 1 & 2 laws of thermodynamics for example (look them up if you don't know what they are).

[dbes02]

@evilmrglitch Yes you do sound confused. Whatever state the big bang emerged from is still the universe. In fact 2nd law is really not a "law" at all but a definition of the Arrow of Time - only applies for systems of large numbers of particles. No matter, no time, no second law. No eternity.

The universe has always been at nett zero energy so doesn't violate the 1st law.

(Look them up if you don't know what they are.)

[evilmrglitch]

@dbes02 Okay, still a problem here:

Okay so if matter is non-existent, then the universe is non-existent. According to the Big Bang model, space itself was also non-existent. But at some point, something came from nothing and from that all came into being.

What changed in order for the universe to come into being at that moment? Or do we say that the law of inertia also doesn't exist?

And as far as I can tell, a net energy gain is necessary for the creation ex nihilo to occur.

[dbes02]

@evilmrglitch Why is the unvierse non-existent without matter? Again we are talking about our 3D state emerging. And no law of inertia when there is no matter. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows an energy energy for a small time period.

Depends what you mean by 'nothing'. Positing a god fairy, for example, would be something. Of course if you want to claim a magic man in the sky then the least you can do is actually provide evidence, instead of relying on gaps in knowledge.

[openair3]

These brief verses explain the answers to your questions Mussaheem along with some brief commentary from me ... 1) John 1:1-3, 14; Philippians 2:6-8. Jesus is God Eternal, and takes a body of flesh. 2) Genesis 1:26, 11:7; John 1:1; 14:16-18; 1 John 5:7. 3 Parts that make up 1 Whole. 3) The Relationship and Authority in the Godhead ... Father & Son. 4) Death of His physical body. His life in the body reveals Godhood - Forgives sins, Claiming to exist before Abraham, Prophecying future.

[dbes02]

openair3, you can't use the Bible as evidence - you need independent evidence, otherwise it's just circular reasoning.

These are just claims.

[Mussaheem]

he is spot on, next step now is to apply his rational analysis beyond other people's religions :-)

to start with explain this without appologetic mombojumbo 1- Jesus is human yet divine. human by definition is "not devine" so jesus is devine and not divine.

2-God is one yet he is three (not one), 3- Jesus prays and suplicates to God (other than him) yet he is God.

4-Jesus is devine (immortal) yet he died (verb applies by definition to mortals) in the cross.

Systemic contradictions?

[envisionmore]

5 stars for this guy..... just one question??? WHY is this man on a show about Christianity. He should be on a show about Deism. (Deists reject organized religion and promote reason as the essential element in making moral decisions)

[ricadelide]

He is not a deist, he's a christian.

[envisionmore]

Exactly.. makes no sense with the way he thinks!

[tkjaros]

His name is Ravi Zacharias. He is a Christian Apologist (one who defends the faith). If you think he knows what he is talking about, check out his FREE podcast on iTunes, "Let My People Think."

[egm108]

Ravi is wrong. God is personal and impersonal; both at the same time. It is only us who perceive the so-called paradoxes or contradictions. God is beyond that.

[converter]

That's just an example that you should examine. He didn't say it's wrong. And ur context might be wrong with his...

[nicoforjesus]

Good day brothers and sisters in Christ!

I hope you all enjoy the videos i will be uploading more!

[TKmundo]

please...no more nonesense.

[therealtony]

Keep it up, let truth be known.