what ravi is saying is that if there is no absolute moral law-giver which is God then there is no absolute moral law on which to base morality on. there could only be moral relativism based on what anybody arbitrarily deems "moral" to them and everyone has different opinions as to what is moral so it really means nothing if there's no standard to base morality on
@patriciacarrasco but that is just an assumption. Let me give two examples. First, why couldn't there be an absolute moral law without God. Do you think there can be a laws of physics without God, and what is the difference. Second, why would the law be more absolute if it is dependent on a God, rather than on humanity. In both cases the law is not absolute in the sense that it is not contingent on a subject. Do you see what I mean?
@TheLittleDonkey Why are you first implying that good and evil are NOT relative terms (and thus absolute), when in your most recent answer you seem to deny believing in moral absolutes? Could you explain? I'm confused about your position right now. Because if you do think morals are absolute, then you eventually end up with a moral Lawgiver. If you don't believe in morals being absolute then how can you explain i.e. atrocities in WW2, which I think can be described as being absolutely wrong...
@MattOost certainly, it is a complicated issue. The reason is that I am not sure about the nature of moral statements, and it doesn't really matter. I think there are options that are less moral than others, and I think there are good reasons for this that can be presented. But if you are like most theists, you deny the possibility of morality to be evaluated and discussed without them having a origin. It is true to the same degree that physical laws need a law giver.
I stopped the vid after you put words in Ravis mouth about the devil, if he were talking of the devil(or more appropriatly principalities), he would have said so.
Ravi is refeing to the fallen nature of man. In the same context you would use the term "evil". The idea that evil comes from the devil is in no way doctrinal, it is a common err to those with no scriptural understanding. Principalities may tempt, but man as been alotted free will by God. the devil has no authority to override this.
@TheLittleDonkey By the way, you are making all kinds of assumptions on Ravi's behalf, which puts you on the wrong track to begin with... I would really urge you to get more into Ravi's view on, for example, absolutes. You are simply implying that good and evil are relative terms, and (presuming you're an atheist) you have to in order to keep denying the existence of a moral law Giver... However, the flaw about trying to suppose that everything is relative is that it is also self-defeating ;-)
@MattOost It is now 3 years since I made this, and I may be mistaken, but I don't think I implied good and evil are relative terms now, did I? If I did, I made a mistake and I apologize for that.
@MattOost I dislike that expression.You think that it is sound to argue that in order to question gods existence, you must accept his existence. I find that reasoning just to be a fancy play on words. If you want to call that an agreement, be my guest. I was just impressed that you such an argument impresses you. I find many valid reasons to believe among believers, but logical arguments is not one of them.
@TheLittleDonkey I think you are missing the point being made here... First of all his argument starts off with the question asked "if God exists, why is there so much evil in the world?". His answer is not about having to pre-assume that God exists, but quite the opposite, that you CANNOT come to good and evil (morality) without God. So in that sense the question is self-defeating. And that is the heart of the problem for atheists: how does one come to absolute morality without a law Giver?
Stopped watching at 3:00. Everyone understands that evil is a departure from the way things ought to be - a departure from good. This tripe about the devil is a total misunderstanding of Christianity and irrelevant to Ravi's argument. It's malicious or ignorant.
Is it evil to eat other people? Why? Canibalist seem to think not and how would you prove them wrong? Because you were raised to believe it was wrong? How can you say that without god we would still have a moral foundation on which to decipher good from evil. Our actions are hugely impacted by our surroundings. If you were raised in a Nazi home all your life you would probably have a inner hatred for Jews and wouldn't be able to tell that it was evil and wrong to have such feelings.
@jjgdog5614 what we think is right or wrong is not relevant for if it is. In the same way that even if many people have different opinions of the mass of the earth wouldn't change the mass of the earth. You can put forth arguments for and against cannibalism, and we can determine that its consequences are bad for our society. Granted, some grey areas is still hard to decide upon, but we can put forth a rather strong case for such extreme behaviour.
@jjgdog5614 what we think is right or wrong is not relevant for if it is. In the same way that even if many people have different opinions of the mass of the earth wouldn't change the mass of the earth. You can put forth arguments for and against cannibalism, and we can determine that its consequences are bad for our society. Granted, some grey areas is still hard to decide upon, but we can put forth a rather strong case for such extreme behaviour.
@ikawpipa We have much better morals than any religious person, because they come from within. We are born with them and learn how to apply them as we grow up. If too many people in a tribe didn't care about the rest of his people the tribe would not survive, hence more people with empathy for others survive to reproduce in a beautiful example of natural selection at work. Morals are essential for social groups to function: see Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape" - if you dare.
God is pure. There is only one Good: a pure Holy God. Evil is not a single event, but is a legion of evil acts committed through out many generations. Therefore: one Good and many evils. We are all evil mined and doers in the eyes of a pure Good God. God gave us freewill to choose. Their in no neutral ground. You either follow a pure Good God or you go at it on your own.
@rawsz4e I can also stipulate definition. Either you love me and give me money, or you are a terrorist. I haven't gotten any money from you, therefore you are a terrorist. Why did you choose to be a terrorist?
@rawsz4e Assuming a god is a pure assertion, nothing more. If you can't establish a premise any better than that your argument falls on its face - you lose.
@hznfrst with this logic, a premise is an assertion. Therefore your premise "if you cannot establish a premise better than that your argument falls on its face - you lose" is nothing more that an assertion. If I'm wrong you owe me a dollar.
Good and evil is not a philosophical discussion which is rationalised with thought experiments but is something that is universally experienced. It isn't a vague relative idea, what is moral for one is not moral for another.
Moral law as about from a person about a person. That means that the moral law is about persons so it must originate from an superior person for it to be legitimate.
@TheLittleDonkey A moral law demands a being with sinless properties, and a knowledge of good and evil. Call it a benchmark. You clearly can't get a moral law from an evil being, that would require a chaotic universe. It requires a being of infinite goodness.
@Surfxeo you assert that, but unless you give any reasons for it, I can dismiss it. Why do I have to accept that a moral law demands a sinless being? I don't even believe in the concept of sin. And even if I would, a sinless being is the definition of god, since she can be the only one not separated from herself, according to Christian mythology. Do you see the problem with your definition here?
@TheLittleDonkey Not sure what you mean with the problem of my definition because by definition Christianity is not based on myth but on hard historical evidence of the person of Jesus of Nazareth. You may not believe he is good but the evidence at least says that he believed to be divine.
By definition sin is the breaking of the moral law of God with pain and death the evidence of sin.
I got confused when you said "She" as that is not part of Christianity. Are you referencing some other deity?
@Surfxeo what I meant was that you define the origin of the moral law as someone without sin, and sin is a concept only found in the Christian mythology, and therefore you have already defined the law giver as god, since the definition of sin in the Christian mythology is to be apart from god, and clearly god cannot be apart from god.
And regarding the she, I meant nothing by it. Are you saying that Yahweh is a man? I thought that he/she didn't have a sex actually.
@TheLittleDonkey Actually the concept of sin is found in the Judeo-Christian scriptures, and might I add in the Muslim faith but they do not believe in original sin. Sin is an act/will against God. Not sure where you get sin as defined apart from God.
(1 John 3:4) Gives a good explaination of what sin is, and so does Galatians 5
The concept of man is not found in sexual organs but from headship. God is not a man but He referes to himself in the masculine in Scripture.
@TheLittleDonkey Ah right. I understand now. I think you have hit right at the heart of the truth of Gods holiness as he cannot bare to look at sin. This is actually what happened in Genesis after man fell, God could no longer walk with man and so removed himself because otherwise his prescence would have tormented Adam. This is why God is often referred to as a consuming fire.
This brings us to Christ who came to save sinners from Gods wrath and take away sin.
@Surfxeo yes, the god that knows everything, has infinite power and sees everything planted a tree for Adam and Eve and then blame Adam for everything.
As for Ravi's student, if you want to belive that his problem was something ordinary like a flat tire, and not those evil things present everywhere and everytime, like slavery and child abuse, it's also your choice, your life.
If I would have you taking my interpretation of the Bible I wouldn't repeately invite you to read it and make your own oppinion. If you don't want to, ok, it's your life.
As I was saying, read the Bible for yourself, don't take other people ideas about it, because they might be wrong like this gentleman in the video you reccomended me. I postet a commentary there, you can also read.
@thenetrider7 I did and I have. I have stopped arguing with people like you who insists that the Bible says what you want it to say. You are free to believe whatever you want, I am not interested in discussing your interpretation of the Bible, thank you. We were discussing your argument that the student in Ravi's example necessarily meant an evil as defined by a standard that is never changing. You haven't supported this and I take it you're not going to. Take care
Where in the Bible have you read that slavery is a good thing? I've read the whole Bible and found no such thing, but exactly the contrary. Please don't confound God's word with what people make of it. Read the Bible yourself and ask God to help you understand it, you'll love it.
.... even then some knew it is wrong, otherwise they wouldn't fight against it and now, even if we know slavery is bad, it still exists. That is permanent evil: evil that was, is and will be evil no matter when in hystory or where on Earth. The only standard that can show us this evil is the Moral Law, the only standard that is permanent, and the only way to correctly understand this law, so that we don't consider evil things as good, is to study God's word. Hope it was clear n
@thenetrider7 but God does change his mind. And if you think God's word is the standard, you shouldn't have any problems with slavery. Unless you actually hold to that slavery is a ok since God said it, your argument doesn't make any sense.
As allready said, to say that something is good or evil you need a standard to compare it to, this standard is what I meant by law. Permanent evil is not what I think is evil, that's subjective and prone to error, like your example about slavery. Permanent evil is what a permanent standard says is evil, even if at some point I might think it is good: slavery was allways wrong, even if most people haven't understood that then. But even then some knew it is wrong, otherwise they
@thenetrider7 no, there are many things in your argument that are wrong. First, evil does not automatically means defined by a law. You can't assume that the student meant that. Secondly, when you mean always evil, you mean as defined by what you think now. But you may learn new things and revise your understanding of evil, much like it has been in history. Followers of Yahweh thought that slavery was ok earlier, but now most of them think that it is wrong.
Evil is deffined as evil by a standard, a law. If evil is constant in time, it means the standard which deffines it is also constant in time. That's why a changing law cannot deffine a constant evil. I'll give you an example: child molesting is allways been a bad thing, wright? That means there's allways been a law wich says children should not be molested. Such permanent evil meant that student in his question (constant evil is what can shake prople's belive in God), not thos
..... The evil this student was talking about is the one allways there and to deffine such constant evil you need an unchanging law, wich so far can be only the Moral Law.
..... The evil this student was talking about is the one allways there and to deffine such constant evil you need an unchanging law, wich so far can be only the Moral Law.
@TheLittleDonkey ....The evil this student was talking about is the one allways there and to deffine such constant evil you need an unchanging law, wich so far can be only the Moral Law.
Sorry, but your arguments are wrong, for 2 reasons: 1. First you talk about something wich has nothing to do with the topic (questioning God's existence based on what He can/will do or not isn't the topic here)
2. You're confounding the Moral Law, wich hasn't changed in time, with the law of the justice system or the social conventions, who both are in constant changing and are made by humans. The evil this student was talking about is the one allways there and to deffine such
If you say that conscioness does not come from God but from brain then How can you explain that moral is something so subjective among the people? Since our features are determined by DNA there should not be diferences in our interpretation of good and evil.
@SASSJMSCBC well, even if your assumption that DNA makes us predestinated (which it doesn't), we don't share the same DNA, so your comment doesn't make any sense. It seems like your question is rather, if God made us all and we are made in his image, why are there differences in our interpretation of good and evil?
@TheLittleDonkey Your rigth, I forgot the use of DNA in criminalistics. And not my question is If there is no God Where the conscioness came form(soul, spirit...I donot know)Forme this a very important question because I belive it from concioness where we do our moral
@SASSJMSCBC you are free to believe whatever you want. However, if you are interested in what the scientific explanation of consciousness, why not read a book about it? Asking the question, "if not God, then how" regardless of topic is pointless, because God is not an explanation, it is a place-holder. You can ask where did X come from and answer God, you can why is Y, and answer God. Just ask yourself if that makes you understand it? If that 'explanation' satisfy you, fine! Good for you!
@TheLittleDonkey so are you.Yet that why I was askling you: I do not know if there an cientific explanation for condciousness. The reason I asked you the question that way is because you made a point in your video that the moralaw giver could be moral phylosophy and social agreement. Yet they come from conciousness.(I do notknow If others animal have moral dilemas like humans do) Also Ilike to clarify that I used the word "conciusness" and not soul,spirit ..(continues)
@SASSJMSCBC ok, so basically you are saying that if consciousness isn't satisfactory explained (origin, function, etc) you can't see how morality could exist? Ok, here's a basic explanation: Consciousness is how we experience the activities of our brain. If you are interested, please look into some video, book or lecture about consciousness.
the first step there is not a simplification (How can know evil if you dont know good?)
Respect to the way we diferenciate good and evil. We indeed need a law system because in our society we penalize evil things(otherwise there could no be justice system because good and evil would be extremmely relative)
third: You forgot something about the lawgiver, the notion of mora comes form consciousness and teology holds that consciousness come from God. (continues)
A man without moral value does not understand the moral responsibility, therefore he goes out of moral obligation as an excuse. The Most High God mentioned that in the end, He will stop evil. He will throw everything in the lake of fire. Now is the time to surrender to Him, and when the time comes, your own wll will not save you from the eternal death. Now is the time, time is running out. Your unbelief will shock you in the end.
Dear LittleDonkey. This clip would have been meaningfull if instead of only finding fault with Ravi's argument, you would present you opinion of where the "Moral Law" comes from.
@zsiyw Things like where the "moral law" comes from are really complicated and is hard to dissect on youtube. I agree with you, but at the same time, if you say that lighting comes from the god Thor, I can point to the faults in that assumption without explaining how lightning works. Assuming God does not solve the problem. Every time you hear someone explain something with "god", ask how he did it and you'll realize this. thank you for your comment!
The problem is defining what evil is. Evil is defined as something being morally wrong. The problem is morality changes over time and place. It is a social construct. Further we can argue that god is evil because he demanded that gays and lesbians be stoned to death.Today most people would find this repulsive therefore god is repulsive. Yet according to this guy god is the moral law giver. Yet this god demands mankind carries out evil acts.
SORRY FOR MY ENGLISH BCOZ ITS NOT MY MOTHER TONGUE but i hope u understand my point [im form tamil nadu / india so i cant help in my english bcoz my language is very rich and classical its really hard for me to convert to a latest language like english].
There are other videos out there when he has done this argument, going into much more detail providing the reasoning behind the argument. Not a 40 second clip from a tv show, but rather when he is preaching/ doing Q/A at universities
Even while the majority of the Youtube community seems to be atheists, judging by the disproportionate number of down thumbs, this video has been viewed mostly by Christians.
Interesting. The typical religious argument for good and evil is that totalitarianism (in general and based on their religion) is needed to determine morality and law as well and maintain order and that the corruption in the world is based on a lack of obidence and submission to religious dictatorship. This is moral and intellectual bankruptcy and just pure religious arrogance and dillusion. Also, if his god is supposed to be the law giver,
@Chuloloc than some one should show him all the moral flaws and atrocities in his bible. It would show that his god it totally unfit to be a law giver. Now that would destroy his argument completely.
This analysis of Ravi's argument is based on a list of false statements:
#1 God does not enter into the argument. Ravi never mentions God here.
#2 He does NOT say that there cannot be a moral law without God.
#3 He does NOT say that there cannot be good and evil without a moral law. He simply states that you need to assume a moral law in order to differentiate the difference between good and evil in the first place.
Why does God get another letter and Devil one less? I don't think that's fair. Unfairness is evil. Therefore the one that made God be good and Devil be evil is evil. If God made everything, God made Devil be evil. Therefore God is both evil and good. Evilness and goodness are mutually exclusive. Therefore God does not exist.
wat a idiotic conclusion. "....... If God made everything, God made Devil be evil. Therefore God is both evil and good. Evilness and goodness are mutually exclusive. Therefore God does not exist." the conclustion is not like u derived it is like evilness and goodness are mutually exclusive so they are independent variables god and devil and devil is inside the human make god only with goodness (bcoz he has moral law) and human both good and bad (he bending the moral law)
2:23 use of the word "sometimes" in this statement creates a big grey space for the author of this video. Since this is "fitted in" to the premise, no need to watch the rest of the video. Another vain attempt. rats!
Okay, you claim the guidelines of G-d establishing good and evil are not absolute? But they in fact ARE. HE says "do not steal." That's an absolute. He says: Do not murder. That's an absolute. He says do not make graven images and worship them. That's an absolute. He says, do not commit adultery. That's an absolute. He says, do not covet the possessions of others. That's an absolute. For the sake of argument, what laws established by humans have absolutes. Even murder does not in our society.
@liliokilani Yes, don't kill, unless for some groups that pray to another god, kill them, and take their young virgins for yourself. Very absolute. But seriously, is that what you mean by absolute? Categorical?
@TheLittleDonkey Whoa buddy! If a Christian kills someone it is in spite of their beliefs not because of their beliefs. I think the real point is that nobody, believer or non-believer inherently wants to kill someone for no good reason. We all are naturally turned off to doing harm to others and that is where God comes in. The purely naturalist or purely Atheist view doesn't account for evil. Not trying to start an argument just felt like giving another perspective.
@perfectfailure23 yes, I think we agree. My comment was in response to a claim that something woudl be absolute/ultimate, if it were categorical. I don't think that is what most Christians mean when they talk about an absolute standard. My comment was just to point out that God has commanded killing, and at the same time by the law forbid killing. So, even if that was to be the meaning of absolute standard, it doesn't work.
@TheLittleDonkey Is there a difference between killing and murdering? If the command was: Thou shalt not kill, would that not include almost all forms of life? Would we not be able to kill any animal or plant in order to keep ourselves from starving?? No, the command must have been: Thou shalt not murder. Which would mean killing humanity (at least) with unlawful subjective intentions? If we cannot understand the original concepts of some of the terms, how can we debate the issue at all?
Your premise that all religious people define evil as supernatural is faulty. Evil is nature in the thoughts, actions and nature of human beings. That is the basis for the law of G-d. So your own conclusions are faulty. Our sinful nature is based in our fleshly nature, which is born out in observation. Even good children will kill other children if they are unsupervised and become angry. So, is YOUR premise: the moral lawmakers establish laws in violation of their own evil nature as humans?
If the question is about evil, then one must assume that there is good. The problem lies with the law giver. If it is society, then its by popular vote. If it is by government then it is placed on us. If it is by the bible(religion), then it is commanded by us to follow. I don't think I like morals to be govern by popular vote. They vary greatly and then who is to say which people are right. We do need a solid foundation on ethical behavior. Not one that is convenient at any particular time.
I think you misunderstand the nature of God. We are free to choose evil or good and free love our creator or turn away from him. In the same way, your children or family choose to love you. What if you could make them love you and they had no choice in the matter? That kind of love could never be the same as their choosing to love you. It's the same for God. He gives us the same choice. He could make us love him but then it really wouldn't be love. Free will sadly means you can choose evil.
@wbvvmd1234 Except that the price of "turning away from him" is eternal torture. I don't know about you, but I don't teach my children that they deserve eternal torture, and that the only salvation for them is to love me. Doesn't sound very "free" is you ask me.
I am confused with your reply? I said God commands. I did not say that you could not refuse. My statement was more or less a disagreement with the idea that society should be what we base morals on. There is no consistency of ethical standards held by people for generations without baseline or laws (both by man or God) to compare right and wrong with. What it would end up being is a personal belief and personal choice of one's self worth to another person's self worth. Chaos.
@wbvvmd1234 Agree. The established NATURE of the supernatural evil is that it seeks to take away free will of the individual. That is also the premise of all dictatorships. G-d is not a dictator. Evil is necessary so that there can be free choice. Therefore all of Epicurus' premises are based on the assumption that to allow evil and not take action against it is a sign of either powerlessness or an evil intent. His P3 is itself an unsupported assumption!!!
@Thelittledonkey Please search youtube for this: Ravi Zacharias: An Evangelical Understanding of Postmodernism 2 / 4 WATCH it it explains how ravi arrives from moral law to moral giver at about 6:00
@thelittledonkey While I agree, He does make a few assumptions hismself. Age is NOT a good analogy to deeds. right and wrong are ENGRAINED in society. You claim tha You are RIGHT, that some deeds are "hard to define" what is good and what is eveil, right and wrong. Age describes US, right and wring describe what we DO and SAY. major issue there. So, are you sure you are correct?, It seems that its hard to define whether your statement is right or wrong about ravi's argument. See the problem???
What he is suggesting is that there is an absolute good and evil, thus just as there is an absolute way to define age there must also be an absolute way to define good and evil. It is this definition that is moral law, whatever form it takes. His argument then to a moral law giver is that only something which is omniscient is fully qualified to grade standing on moral law because moral philosophy and social agreement are clearly not absolute. This omniscient being is God.
@TheLittleDonkey ... but you agree that an absolute exists. And philosophy and social agreement are insufficient. The definition suggests something that transcends subjective human feelings. It is objective moral values. Objectively Evil vs. Objectively Good. All human beings subscribe to this DESPITE our subjective feelings.
The fact that there IS so much EVIL in the world- ABSOLUTELY shows that SO MUCH HATE, EVIL, PERVERSE, MURDEROUS, TWISTED things that men do- ABSOLUTELY PROVES that WE are much,much more than the final byproduct of evolution. SCIENCE CANNOT ANSWER SO MANY QUESTIONS about life, and the answers will never be found in science. THE fact that there is so much horrific cruelty in men, HAS TO BE FROM SOMETHING OUTSIDE OF EVOLUTION, and a purposeless. If you look around at what people are like today,
@TheWayandWordofLife why do you capitalize random words? Humans are not the final byproduct of evolution, it is not final, and it is not more evolved than any other today living organism. However, you are just rambling and I don't think you are here to discuss, so bye, and take care.
ACTUALLY, HE DOES explain WHY There are set moral laws of Good, and Evil- and how God is who tells uf what is good, and what is bad. Evolution, atheism - CANNOT, and never will be able to give adequate reasons as to why there is obviously great evil in the world, and a constant struggle with it, and why is it hard for us to be good, unless we have a very strong sense of values??? His answer to the question is in two parts- the second part of his answer was directly afterwards- which for SOME
A serial killers definition of "betterment" is probably much different than yours and according to you, since morality is interpretive, he is not wrong in his assumptions. By your own definition he cannot be wrong, he is only interpreting his morality in a different way. On what basis can you condemn a serial killer and not contradict your own ideas about morality. You can't.
its nice you're trying to disprove his theories. I have to say, unfortunately I was disappointed with your arguments. They were not established on sound foundation, you simply at the end of each of Ravi's statements conclude that it doesn't work. Ravi's simple statements in his video can be expanded upon and is philosophically sound, unfortunately to say, yours is an opinion that is not sustainable in a philosophical debate.
That said, good try. I liked the presentation and music choice.
@9xixix9 well, thank you. This is a very old video and I would suspect that I would have done it differently today. However, first of all Ravi's argument is not a theory. Second, in a argument, if the argument is sound, the conclusion follows from the premises, if they are correct, so pointing out that they are not is kind of important. Third, Ravi's argument is not sustainable in a philosophical debate, so why would a critique of them somehow be philosophically sustainable?
She lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose semen was like that of horses.
Genitals = Mans private part
Semen = Sperm
Can any christian Mother read this front of her daughter or son?
[Quran 2:79]
Therefore, woe to those who distort the scripture with their own hands, then say, "This is what Allah has revealed," seeking a cheap material gain. Woe to them for such distortion, and woe to them for their illicit gains.
If God wanted to create humanity with the ability to love then free will would have to be a component of that creature, which would mean that humanity would have to have the ability to love or not to love. In choosing not to love one can choose to do harm. This allows the possibility of doing evil.
@TheLittleDonkey lets say you have a son. As his parent you want him to be successful and happy in life so you give him the best advice about life. If he doesn't listen you can try to force him to do something. Now, if you had the power to control him; save him from suffering, would you? But what would be the point? Is that really an expression of love? As his parent all you can do is advice. God can absolutely control us, he wants to stop the suffering! But that means taking away our freedom.
@9xixix9 Let's say you have a son. You raise him up to be a good person (though he survives only because you didn't stone him like the bible wants) you love him and want him to be happy. He comes to the conclusion that some of what you told him is wrong. What do you do? Do you do what god would do and burn him for all eternity? If god wants to stop the suffering, why doesn't he? If you were interested in free will you do not punish people FOR ETERNITY for CHOOSING not to worship you/ bow down.
@arithine Everything you have said is a perception that the world has created. (ex. he doesn't "burn" people in hell. Hell is a place that people choose to go bc they don't believe or do not want to believe in God. If you don't want to go to heaven (which is to be in the presence of God) then you would go to hell, which is the absence of God. Your Choice, its that simple.
@arithine I understand where you're coming from. All I can say is, if there was a God of love, someone who really created us and truly loves us, then I'd want to find out who he is and really does he exist. I nvr believed in God and fought it for a long time. I grew up in a nation where the govn't would jail you for it. But my life changed after I started to ask these ques and truly sought the answer with an open mind. I don't know all the answers.. just that my life has changed for the better.
The atheist is attempting to use the absolute to disprove an absolute, which is self-refuting. I am not saying that all atheists are immoral and neither is Ravi. Nevertheless, the atheist has no philosophical foundation to make a moral claim on an objective or absolute basis.
Many of you do not understand Ravi's position and the position of the atheist positing the argument. If there is no God then materialism is all that is left. That is, moral relativism. With moral relativism whatever a person, group of people, or individual views as moral or immoral then it becomes valid. However, to posit this argument to disprove an objective moral law giver is positing from the objective or absolute, which is Ravi's point. An atheist cannot sustain this line of reasoning.
@stauguastine Wrong, there are many ways in which to define morality. The big philosophical guns that tackle the subject tend to lean away from god. We are not responsible to god but we are responsible to each other. What actions benefit our survival? Do your actions harm another human being? Morality is not black and white. It is not easy to determine what is moral, but it can all be explained without a god, and it is possible to discover what is right and wrong (objectively) without a god.
...like for enjoyment. Well it just so happens that serial killers enjoy killing people, and rapists enjoy raping people. If life were about fun then you could justify these actions. The only reason to condem these actions in your world view is to ensure that it doesn't happen to you. There is nothing moral about that.
@NodeRanvier I think none of us thinks that every morality is equal. The difference is only that you think your moral is superior because you think a god told you so.
@TheLittleDonkey You didn't even adress a single point I made. I made it clear why morallity from a power which transcends humans is important and why humans placing value on morallity isn't actually morallity at all. For the record you suck at debating.
@NodeRanvier it would be easier to discuss with you if you made one post rather than several. However, If morality that transcends humans is important or not, have nothing to do with if it is true.
@TheLittleDonkey That's true, but if you're right then you must concede that the entire concept of morallity does not exist for atheists. This is my main point. I've already given you the reasons why in earlier posts.
@NodeRanvier Yes, but I don't agree with you. Just because morality isn't absolute, if it isn't, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Further, claiming using an absolute standard doesn't make it absolute. You still have ahead of you to show how you can know the standard, and further, to show that that is an absolute standard. Just stating "absolute morality seems like a good idea, well I have that and you have it not" doesn't really cut it.
@TheLittleDonkey I'm sorry but your paragraph didn't make much sense to me. "Yes, but I don't agree with you." - saying yes implies that you agree with me. You misunderstood my point: if morallity isn't absolute and in fact a human creation, then it has no value (I have already provided reasons why). I have no way to prove that an absolute morallity exists, I was never debating that; frankly, whether it exists or not is irrelevent. If you do not believe in an absolute morallity, then you do...
@NodeRanvier Are you saying that without god you would be a murderer? I'm sorry but it would seem you do good only so you don't piss off your giant sky daddy. I on the other hand do good for goods sake. I'm sorry but god is not the only way to define morality. Let me ask you this, is what is good good because god says so? Or is it good for other reasons and he just delivers the message? In the first scenario god could make rape moral if he wanted, but in the second god isn't really needed.
@arithine No I'm saying that there is no reason not to kill somebody for your own gain, outside of being punished by other humans, if God does not exist. If God doesn't exist morality is intrepretive, therefore a serial killer is interpreting his morality correctly and you have no basis to condemn him on that. The only reason to condemn him is to ensure that said serial killer does not hurt YOU. There is nothing moral about what I just described, it's actually selfishness.
@arithine To answer your second question, yes; what is good is good because God said so. It is significant because a being greater than myself sets the standard of morality, as opposed to fellow humans setting the standard which ulitmately has no meaning to me. What you think is right means nothing to me. Yes God could make rape moral, and then we as humans would feel a deep personal satisfaction from the act, but alas he has made hurting people immoral and you feel shitty when you do.
If God is not the standard on which you base your morals, what is and why is the reasoning for basing it on your standard significant? More specifically, why is that reason significant to reality?
@NodeRanvier When we think about other people we need to understand that they are people. They are not inferior nor are they superior then you are (where morality is concerned). They deserve the same treatment you do. Morality comes from the fact that we are conscious. When the survival of the species is concerned morality plays a large part. The religious morality does not change, meaning it can not improve. Killing another human being is generally not conductive to our survival. [cont.]
@arithine You didn't adress my points but whatever, I'll adress yours though.
"They are not inferior nor are they superior then you are (where morality is concerned). They deserve the same treatment you do."
Why exactly do they deserve the same treatment as me? Because they're humans? That means nothing to me. Why is that reason significant? You just made your own interpretation of morality, like the serial killer in my analogy, and his worldview is just as valid as yours.
@NodeRanvier [...cont] When morality is viewed as something which is used to increase our survival and contributing to the betterment of mankind we understand why something is moral or immoral and do not leave the reigns to a higher power which claims to be the source of all good. We are able to change and improve our morality meaning we have the ability to find a greater understanding about ourselves. We do not need to be gods toys, kissing his feet with the threat of hell to keep us in line.
@arithine The first statement in this paragraph is self contradictory, if one is doing a good action to be seen by other humans it ceases to be moral. Also, you mention the betterment of mankind? What is better? Why do you get to decide what is better? According to you, every human being is equal therefore everyone else is just as valid in deciding as you. Therefore, in your worldview, morality does not even exist.
@NodeRanvier sorry to impose on your discussion, but how can you say that caring about others invalids morality? Are you defining morality as altruism now?
@TheLittleDonkey I've explained this many times but I'll do it again. What I'm saying is that when an atheist "cares" about somebody he is only doing so to benefit himself, either consciously or unconciously. Consciously to be seen by other humans and thus feel good about himself, or unconsciously because it is an evolutionary trait.
Evolutionists have accepted this line of thinking. Richard Dawkins response to this argument is something along the lines of "So what if it's a horrible reality, it doesn't make it not true." Which is true. Therefore you have two options:
1) Take on faith that God exists and thus morality and purpose, or
2) Do not believe in the existence of God, thus invalidating morality and purpose (beyond reproduction).
@NodeRanvier sure I accept that. But you can't just believe it to be otherwise, and thereby making it so. Furthermore, believing in god doesn't make your morality more than pleasing god or saving your eternal soul either.
But to cut the to the chase, and this is the important bit, regardless of what the scientific explanation for morality is, it doesn't change our morality. Do you stop to enjoy the sunset when you know that is it just a giant ball of burning gas?
@NodeRanvier I could easily say the reason you do good is because God is watching over you and you don't want to disappoint him. I'm sorry but as a sentient being I understand other people are sentient beings, I do not do good so other people will see me as good, but because it is good.
My morality is based off of a goal, the betterment of mankind. You're morality is based off of the arbitrary decisions god makes, I feel my morality is more objective/ real then yours.
@arithine You do good because it is good to do good. Okay. This begs the question why is it good to do good? Also, who defines good? Hitlers idea of good was much different than yours I'm sure. With no absolute definition of good or evil people will interpret morality in whatever way they want, thus no morality as it is different for each person. I don't know how much simpler I can put it.
Also, you have it wrong for why Christians do good.
@arithine Your goal, or reason for doing good (even though you just said you do good for no goal but for the sake of good...), is the betterment of mankind, but I asked you in an earlier post what the word "betterment" means. You didn't answer and I assume that is because you don't know how to answer the question.
We don't think atheists are evil because they don't believe in God. We just don't understand you having a reason for morals at all because in your world view the entire concept of morality does not exist. You only purport to have morals in order to be, unconsciously, accepted by other humans, which in turn helps you survive. The only reason for surviving scientifically speaking, is to carry on your genetic material. But you claim you live for purposes other than reproduction...
If there is no absolute moral truth, then one persons Good - Hitler, for example, is another persons evil. And we wouldn't be justified in fighting someone like Hitler as he is just as moral as anyone else. In fact even comparing his morality to someone else's is non-sensical.
@TheLittleDonkey I'm not saying atheist are without morals, merely that those morals become irrational. If the purpose of my life just becomes my survival-survival of my DNA vs others-that can have scary consequences. Even if we zoom out to the society level, and even if we zoom out to the human race; the consequences are severe. I take no offense to your words.
@JohnFGoforth I see. But why do you think that the purpose of life should be survival? Just because a rock falls to the ground, it doesn't make it its purpose. The moral principle behind the reasoning you present is odd to me. For example, just because we have urges to reproduce, why should we make that our moral guideline and purpose of life?
@TheLittleDonkey What else would be the purpose of life? A rock, to be a rock, must obey the laws of gravity. A life, to be alive, must survive. Maybe property is a better word that purpose here. If a property of life is that it lives and carries on DNA and if it has no purpose other than it the evolutionary sense to not die and to pass on its DNA. What value does another human being have to you?
@JohnFGoforth tremendous! I don't know of anything so remarkable as to be alive. If we are just products of evolutionary history is irrelevant to what value I put on human life.
First off i don't think you really understand what he was trying to say. Just because you don't believe in God does not mean that there is no moral law. Also i think that you don't know what the definition of evil is. Evil is the absence of God, or in a since going in your own way (apart from God). Killing a child is not going in the way(or moral law) that God wants therefore it is evil. Lastly i would love to see you debate Ravi sometime... i'm sure you will win....lol
@crimsonfish13 hi there. I haven't claimed that there necessarily isn't a moral law regardless of the existence of god. Second, the definition of evil isn't absence of God. One definition of evil is absence of god. If you try to imagine holding the belief that there is no god and that the definition of evil as absence of god, you will realized how insane such a belief would be. Everything would be by default evil. Lastly, I'm sure he would kill me in a debate, but I fail to see the relevance.
The argument that Zacharias disproves is: "There is evil therefore God does not exist." Even an athiest has to reject this, but the rejection does not prove God's existence.
You redherring the issue with the trilemma, which does not prove or disprove the existence of God, merely the issue of God's Omnipotence and/or Omnibevenolence. By accepting the third choice of the trilemma you are adopting that there is a God and he is not omnibenevolent, thus God exist and evil exist.
what ravi is saying is that if there is no absolute moral law-giver which is God then there is no absolute moral law on which to base morality on. there could only be moral relativism based on what anybody arbitrarily deems "moral" to them and everyone has different opinions as to what is moral so it really means nothing if there's no standard to base morality on
patriciacarrasco 1 week ago
@patriciacarrasco but that is just an assumption. Let me give two examples. First, why couldn't there be an absolute moral law without God. Do you think there can be a laws of physics without God, and what is the difference. Second, why would the law be more absolute if it is dependent on a God, rather than on humanity. In both cases the law is not absolute in the sense that it is not contingent on a subject. Do you see what I mean?
TheLittleDonkey 1 week ago
This guy badly needs a class in basic logic.
hatemorethanyou999 1 month ago
@TheLittleDonkey Why are you first implying that good and evil are NOT relative terms (and thus absolute), when in your most recent answer you seem to deny believing in moral absolutes? Could you explain? I'm confused about your position right now. Because if you do think morals are absolute, then you eventually end up with a moral Lawgiver. If you don't believe in morals being absolute then how can you explain i.e. atrocities in WW2, which I think can be described as being absolutely wrong...
MattOost 2 months ago 2
@MattOost certainly, it is a complicated issue. The reason is that I am not sure about the nature of moral statements, and it doesn't really matter. I think there are options that are less moral than others, and I think there are good reasons for this that can be presented. But if you are like most theists, you deny the possibility of morality to be evaluated and discussed without them having a origin. It is true to the same degree that physical laws need a law giver.
TheLittleDonkey 2 months ago
Comment removed
gideon001 2 months ago
I stopped the vid after you put words in Ravis mouth about the devil, if he were talking of the devil(or more appropriatly principalities), he would have said so.
Ravi is refeing to the fallen nature of man. In the same context you would use the term "evil". The idea that evil comes from the devil is in no way doctrinal, it is a common err to those with no scriptural understanding. Principalities may tempt, but man as been alotted free will by God. the devil has no authority to override this.
gideon001 2 months ago
What stupid thesis!
jamesjaw 2 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey By the way, you are making all kinds of assumptions on Ravi's behalf, which puts you on the wrong track to begin with... I would really urge you to get more into Ravi's view on, for example, absolutes. You are simply implying that good and evil are relative terms, and (presuming you're an atheist) you have to in order to keep denying the existence of a moral law Giver... However, the flaw about trying to suppose that everything is relative is that it is also self-defeating ;-)
MattOost 2 months ago
@MattOost It is now 3 years since I made this, and I may be mistaken, but I don't think I implied good and evil are relative terms now, did I? If I did, I made a mistake and I apologize for that.
TheLittleDonkey 2 months ago
Not impressed... (more impressed by Ravi's arguments)
MattOost 2 months ago
@MattOost then I am impressed by you.
TheLittleDonkey 2 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey Well, I guess that we can agree to disagree ;-)
MattOost 2 months ago
@MattOost I dislike that expression.You think that it is sound to argue that in order to question gods existence, you must accept his existence. I find that reasoning just to be a fancy play on words. If you want to call that an agreement, be my guest. I was just impressed that you such an argument impresses you. I find many valid reasons to believe among believers, but logical arguments is not one of them.
TheLittleDonkey 2 months ago
Comment removed
MattOost 2 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey I think you are missing the point being made here... First of all his argument starts off with the question asked "if God exists, why is there so much evil in the world?". His answer is not about having to pre-assume that God exists, but quite the opposite, that you CANNOT come to good and evil (morality) without God. So in that sense the question is self-defeating. And that is the heart of the problem for atheists: how does one come to absolute morality without a law Giver?
MattOost 2 months ago
@MattOost that is no problem. If you believe in moral absolutes you do. No need to invoke god for that.
TheLittleDonkey 2 months ago
Comment removed
MattOost 2 months ago
Stopped watching at 3:00. Everyone understands that evil is a departure from the way things ought to be - a departure from good. This tripe about the devil is a total misunderstanding of Christianity and irrelevant to Ravi's argument. It's malicious or ignorant.
JWHurwitz 3 months ago
@JWHurwitz I guess ignorant then, what is good, according to Christianity?
TheLittleDonkey 3 months ago
If you can prove that without religious background we would still have the same morals we have today then you prove Ravi wrong.
jjgdog5614 4 months ago
@jjgdog5614 first of all, I don't think we would. Second, I don't see how such a proof would prove Ravi wrong.
TheLittleDonkey 4 months ago
Is it evil to eat other people? Why? Canibalist seem to think not and how would you prove them wrong? Because you were raised to believe it was wrong? How can you say that without god we would still have a moral foundation on which to decipher good from evil. Our actions are hugely impacted by our surroundings. If you were raised in a Nazi home all your life you would probably have a inner hatred for Jews and wouldn't be able to tell that it was evil and wrong to have such feelings.
jjgdog5614 4 months ago
@jjgdog5614 what we think is right or wrong is not relevant for if it is. In the same way that even if many people have different opinions of the mass of the earth wouldn't change the mass of the earth. You can put forth arguments for and against cannibalism, and we can determine that its consequences are bad for our society. Granted, some grey areas is still hard to decide upon, but we can put forth a rather strong case for such extreme behaviour.
TheLittleDonkey 4 months ago
@jjgdog5614 what we think is right or wrong is not relevant for if it is. In the same way that even if many people have different opinions of the mass of the earth wouldn't change the mass of the earth. You can put forth arguments for and against cannibalism, and we can determine that its consequences are bad for our society. Granted, some grey areas is still hard to decide upon, but we can put forth a rather strong case for such extreme behaviour.
TheLittleDonkey 4 months ago
Suppressed fear's presence.
rawsz4e 4 months ago
atheists have no morals.
ikawpipa 4 months ago
@ikawpipa I can prove you wrong. I am an atheist. I have morals.
TheLittleDonkey 4 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey ok. you win.
ikawpipa 4 months ago
@ikawpipa We have much better morals than any religious person, because they come from within. We are born with them and learn how to apply them as we grow up. If too many people in a tribe didn't care about the rest of his people the tribe would not survive, hence more people with empathy for others survive to reproduce in a beautiful example of natural selection at work. Morals are essential for social groups to function: see Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape" - if you dare.
hznfrst 4 months ago
@hznfrst - the reason is simple, people were created in the image and likeness of you know who. - if you dare know.
ikawpipa 4 months ago
God is pure. There is only one Good: a pure Holy God. Evil is not a single event, but is a legion of evil acts committed through out many generations. Therefore: one Good and many evils. We are all evil mined and doers in the eyes of a pure Good God. God gave us freewill to choose. Their in no neutral ground. You either follow a pure Good God or you go at it on your own.
rawsz4e 4 months ago
@rawsz4e I can also stipulate definition. Either you love me and give me money, or you are a terrorist. I haven't gotten any money from you, therefore you are a terrorist. Why did you choose to be a terrorist?
TheLittleDonkey 4 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey: what does this have to do with a pure God?
rawsz4e 4 months ago
@rawsz4e Assuming a god is a pure assertion, nothing more. If you can't establish a premise any better than that your argument falls on its face - you lose.
hznfrst 4 months ago
@hznfrst with this logic, a premise is an assertion. Therefore your premise "if you cannot establish a premise better than that your argument falls on its face - you lose" is nothing more that an assertion. If I'm wrong you owe me a dollar.
rawsz4e 4 months ago
Good and evil is not a philosophical discussion which is rationalised with thought experiments but is something that is universally experienced. It isn't a vague relative idea, what is moral for one is not moral for another.
Moral law as about from a person about a person. That means that the moral law is about persons so it must originate from an superior person for it to be legitimate.
Surfxeo 5 months ago
@Surfxeo you are free to believe whatever you want. In your system, how do you define superior?
TheLittleDonkey 5 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey Greater than a man. I should have used "being" instead of person.
Surfxeo 5 months ago
@Surfxeo so your definition of moral law presupposes a supernatural being then.
TheLittleDonkey 5 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey A moral law demands a being with sinless properties, and a knowledge of good and evil. Call it a benchmark. You clearly can't get a moral law from an evil being, that would require a chaotic universe. It requires a being of infinite goodness.
Surfxeo 5 months ago
@Surfxeo you assert that, but unless you give any reasons for it, I can dismiss it. Why do I have to accept that a moral law demands a sinless being? I don't even believe in the concept of sin. And even if I would, a sinless being is the definition of god, since she can be the only one not separated from herself, according to Christian mythology. Do you see the problem with your definition here?
TheLittleDonkey 5 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey Not sure what you mean with the problem of my definition because by definition Christianity is not based on myth but on hard historical evidence of the person of Jesus of Nazareth. You may not believe he is good but the evidence at least says that he believed to be divine.
By definition sin is the breaking of the moral law of God with pain and death the evidence of sin.
I got confused when you said "She" as that is not part of Christianity. Are you referencing some other deity?
Surfxeo 5 months ago
@Surfxeo what I meant was that you define the origin of the moral law as someone without sin, and sin is a concept only found in the Christian mythology, and therefore you have already defined the law giver as god, since the definition of sin in the Christian mythology is to be apart from god, and clearly god cannot be apart from god.
And regarding the she, I meant nothing by it. Are you saying that Yahweh is a man? I thought that he/she didn't have a sex actually.
TheLittleDonkey 5 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey Actually the concept of sin is found in the Judeo-Christian scriptures, and might I add in the Muslim faith but they do not believe in original sin. Sin is an act/will against God. Not sure where you get sin as defined apart from God.
(1 John 3:4) Gives a good explaination of what sin is, and so does Galatians 5
The concept of man is not found in sexual organs but from headship. God is not a man but He referes to himself in the masculine in Scripture.
Yahweh is 3 persons.
Surfxeo 5 months ago
@Surfxeo yes, of course you're right. I was just referring to the popular notion that living in sin is the choice to live separated from god.
TheLittleDonkey 5 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey Ah right. I understand now. I think you have hit right at the heart of the truth of Gods holiness as he cannot bare to look at sin. This is actually what happened in Genesis after man fell, God could no longer walk with man and so removed himself because otherwise his prescence would have tormented Adam. This is why God is often referred to as a consuming fire.
This brings us to Christ who came to save sinners from Gods wrath and take away sin.
Surfxeo 5 months ago
@Surfxeo yes, the god that knows everything, has infinite power and sees everything planted a tree for Adam and Eve and then blame Adam for everything.
TheLittleDonkey 5 months ago
@theLittleDonkey
As for Ravi's student, if you want to belive that his problem was something ordinary like a flat tire, and not those evil things present everywhere and everytime, like slavery and child abuse, it's also your choice, your life.
thenetrider7 5 months ago
@thenetrider7 what?!?
TheLittleDonkey 5 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey
If I would have you taking my interpretation of the Bible I wouldn't repeately invite you to read it and make your own oppinion. If you don't want to, ok, it's your life.
thenetrider7 5 months ago
TheLittleDonkey
As I was saying, read the Bible for yourself, don't take other people ideas about it, because they might be wrong like this gentleman in the video you reccomended me. I postet a commentary there, you can also read.
thenetrider7 5 months ago
@thenetrider7 I did and I have. I have stopped arguing with people like you who insists that the Bible says what you want it to say. You are free to believe whatever you want, I am not interested in discussing your interpretation of the Bible, thank you. We were discussing your argument that the student in Ravi's example necessarily meant an evil as defined by a standard that is never changing. You haven't supported this and I take it you're not going to. Take care
TheLittleDonkey 5 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey
Where in the Bible have you read that slavery is a good thing? I've read the whole Bible and found no such thing, but exactly the contrary. Please don't confound God's word with what people make of it. Read the Bible yourself and ask God to help you understand it, you'll love it.
thenetrider7 5 months ago
@thenetrider7 well, to help you out, check out /watch?v=QfzH_TEXHZk
TheLittleDonkey 5 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey
.... even then some knew it is wrong, otherwise they wouldn't fight against it and now, even if we know slavery is bad, it still exists. That is permanent evil: evil that was, is and will be evil no matter when in hystory or where on Earth. The only standard that can show us this evil is the Moral Law, the only standard that is permanent, and the only way to correctly understand this law, so that we don't consider evil things as good, is to study God's word. Hope it was clear n
thenetrider7 5 months ago
@thenetrider7 but God does change his mind. And if you think God's word is the standard, you shouldn't have any problems with slavery. Unless you actually hold to that slavery is a ok since God said it, your argument doesn't make any sense.
TheLittleDonkey 5 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey
As allready said, to say that something is good or evil you need a standard to compare it to, this standard is what I meant by law. Permanent evil is not what I think is evil, that's subjective and prone to error, like your example about slavery. Permanent evil is what a permanent standard says is evil, even if at some point I might think it is good: slavery was allways wrong, even if most people haven't understood that then. But even then some knew it is wrong, otherwise they
thenetrider7 5 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey
...not those things that bother us today but will be forgotten tomorrow. Ok? God be with you.
thenetrider7 5 months ago
@thenetrider7 no, there are many things in your argument that are wrong. First, evil does not automatically means defined by a law. You can't assume that the student meant that. Secondly, when you mean always evil, you mean as defined by what you think now. But you may learn new things and revise your understanding of evil, much like it has been in history. Followers of Yahweh thought that slavery was ok earlier, but now most of them think that it is wrong.
TheLittleDonkey 5 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey
Evil is deffined as evil by a standard, a law. If evil is constant in time, it means the standard which deffines it is also constant in time. That's why a changing law cannot deffine a constant evil. I'll give you an example: child molesting is allways been a bad thing, wright? That means there's allways been a law wich says children should not be molested. Such permanent evil meant that student in his question (constant evil is what can shake prople's belive in God), not thos
thenetrider7 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheLittleDonkey
..... The evil this student was talking about is the one allways there and to deffine such constant evil you need an unchanging law, wich so far can be only the Moral Law.
thenetrider7 5 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey
..... The evil this student was talking about is the one allways there and to deffine such constant evil you need an unchanging law, wich so far can be only the Moral Law.
thenetrider7 5 months ago
@thenetrider7 why? I don't see how evil requires and unchanging law.
TheLittleDonkey 5 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey ....The evil this student was talking about is the one allways there and to deffine such constant evil you need an unchanging law, wich so far can be only the Moral Law.
thenetrider7 5 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey
Sorry, but your arguments are wrong, for 2 reasons: 1. First you talk about something wich has nothing to do with the topic (questioning God's existence based on what He can/will do or not isn't the topic here)
2. You're confounding the Moral Law, wich hasn't changed in time, with the law of the justice system or the social conventions, who both are in constant changing and are made by humans. The evil this student was talking about is the one allways there and to deffine such
thenetrider7 5 months ago
If you say that conscioness does not come from God but from brain then How can you explain that moral is something so subjective among the people? Since our features are determined by DNA there should not be diferences in our interpretation of good and evil.
SASSJMSCBC 5 months ago
@SASSJMSCBC well, even if your assumption that DNA makes us predestinated (which it doesn't), we don't share the same DNA, so your comment doesn't make any sense. It seems like your question is rather, if God made us all and we are made in his image, why are there differences in our interpretation of good and evil?
TheLittleDonkey 5 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey Your rigth, I forgot the use of DNA in criminalistics. And not my question is If there is no God Where the conscioness came form(soul, spirit...I donot know)Forme this a very important question because I belive it from concioness where we do our moral
SASSJMSCBC 5 months ago
@SASSJMSCBC you are free to believe whatever you want. However, if you are interested in what the scientific explanation of consciousness, why not read a book about it? Asking the question, "if not God, then how" regardless of topic is pointless, because God is not an explanation, it is a place-holder. You can ask where did X come from and answer God, you can why is Y, and answer God. Just ask yourself if that makes you understand it? If that 'explanation' satisfy you, fine! Good for you!
TheLittleDonkey 5 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey so are you.Yet that why I was askling you: I do not know if there an cientific explanation for condciousness. The reason I asked you the question that way is because you made a point in your video that the moralaw giver could be moral phylosophy and social agreement. Yet they come from conciousness.(I do notknow If others animal have moral dilemas like humans do) Also Ilike to clarify that I used the word "conciusness" and not soul,spirit ..(continues)
SASSJMSCBC 5 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey bercause some people that I found do not like these words(the found it old fashioned words)
SASSJMSCBC 5 months ago
@SASSJMSCBC ok, so basically you are saying that if consciousness isn't satisfactory explained (origin, function, etc) you can't see how morality could exist? Ok, here's a basic explanation: Consciousness is how we experience the activities of our brain. If you are interested, please look into some video, book or lecture about consciousness.
TheLittleDonkey 5 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey
the first step there is not a simplification (How can know evil if you dont know good?)
Respect to the way we diferenciate good and evil. We indeed need a law system because in our society we penalize evil things(otherwise there could no be justice system because good and evil would be extremmely relative)
third: You forgot something about the lawgiver, the notion of mora comes form consciousness and teology holds that consciousness come from God. (continues)
SASSJMSCBC 5 months ago
A man without moral value does not understand the moral responsibility, therefore he goes out of moral obligation as an excuse. The Most High God mentioned that in the end, He will stop evil. He will throw everything in the lake of fire. Now is the time to surrender to Him, and when the time comes, your own wll will not save you from the eternal death. Now is the time, time is running out. Your unbelief will shock you in the end.
josacra 5 months ago
Dear LittleDonkey. This clip would have been meaningfull if instead of only finding fault with Ravi's argument, you would present you opinion of where the "Moral Law" comes from.
zsiyw 6 months ago 2
@zsiyw Things like where the "moral law" comes from are really complicated and is hard to dissect on youtube. I agree with you, but at the same time, if you say that lighting comes from the god Thor, I can point to the faults in that assumption without explaining how lightning works. Assuming God does not solve the problem. Every time you hear someone explain something with "god", ask how he did it and you'll realize this. thank you for your comment!
TheLittleDonkey 5 months ago
@DrMontague
MORALITY IS NOT CHANGES OVER TIME AND PLACE my frnd its trends and cultures changes. morality is static and its not social construct.
hellobal100 6 months ago
The problem is defining what evil is. Evil is defined as something being morally wrong. The problem is morality changes over time and place. It is a social construct. Further we can argue that god is evil because he demanded that gays and lesbians be stoned to death.Today most people would find this repulsive therefore god is repulsive. Yet according to this guy god is the moral law giver. Yet this god demands mankind carries out evil acts.
DrMontague 6 months ago
@Quintinohthree
SORRY FOR MY ENGLISH BCOZ ITS NOT MY MOTHER TONGUE but i hope u understand my point [im form tamil nadu / india so i cant help in my english bcoz my language is very rich and classical its really hard for me to convert to a latest language like english].
so ok now tell how my conclusion is idiot? frnd
hellobal100 6 months ago
There are other videos out there when he has done this argument, going into much more detail providing the reasoning behind the argument. Not a 40 second clip from a tv show, but rather when he is preaching/ doing Q/A at universities
Regoismyname 6 months ago
Even while the majority of the Youtube community seems to be atheists, judging by the disproportionate number of down thumbs, this video has been viewed mostly by Christians.
SSJ3Ulcer 6 months ago
Interesting. The typical religious argument for good and evil is that totalitarianism (in general and based on their religion) is needed to determine morality and law as well and maintain order and that the corruption in the world is based on a lack of obidence and submission to religious dictatorship. This is moral and intellectual bankruptcy and just pure religious arrogance and dillusion. Also, if his god is supposed to be the law giver,
Chuloloc 6 months ago
@Chuloloc than some one should show him all the moral flaws and atrocities in his bible. It would show that his god it totally unfit to be a law giver. Now that would destroy his argument completely.
Chuloloc 6 months ago
This analysis of Ravi's argument is based on a list of false statements:
#1 God does not enter into the argument. Ravi never mentions God here.
#2 He does NOT say that there cannot be a moral law without God.
#3 He does NOT say that there cannot be good and evil without a moral law. He simply states that you need to assume a moral law in order to differentiate the difference between good and evil in the first place.
This above argument leaks like a basket.
greatgulffixed 7 months ago
God->Good
Devil->Evil
Why does God get another letter and Devil one less? I don't think that's fair. Unfairness is evil. Therefore the one that made God be good and Devil be evil is evil. If God made everything, God made Devil be evil. Therefore God is both evil and good. Evilness and goodness are mutually exclusive. Therefore God does not exist.
Nah, just messing around.
Quintinohthree 8 months ago
@Quintinohthree nah, they both got one letter, o and d
TheLittleDonkey 8 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey
Well that explains it.
Quintinohthree 8 months ago
@Quintinohthree
wat a idiotic conclusion. "....... If God made everything, God made Devil be evil. Therefore God is both evil and good. Evilness and goodness are mutually exclusive. Therefore God does not exist." the conclustion is not like u derived it is like evilness and goodness are mutually exclusive so they are independent variables god and devil and devil is inside the human make god only with goodness (bcoz he has moral law) and human both good and bad (he bending the moral law)
hellobal100 6 months ago
@hellobal100
The "idiotic conclusion" is on your part, concluding that that was a bad argument, and not a bad joke.
If you want to discuss morality though, I'm available, though you should take more care of your English.
Quintinohthree 6 months ago
2:23 use of the word "sometimes" in this statement creates a big grey space for the author of this video. Since this is "fitted in" to the premise, no need to watch the rest of the video. Another vain attempt. rats!
helpmetony 9 months ago
Okay, you claim the guidelines of G-d establishing good and evil are not absolute? But they in fact ARE. HE says "do not steal." That's an absolute. He says: Do not murder. That's an absolute. He says do not make graven images and worship them. That's an absolute. He says, do not commit adultery. That's an absolute. He says, do not covet the possessions of others. That's an absolute. For the sake of argument, what laws established by humans have absolutes. Even murder does not in our society.
liliokilani 9 months ago
@liliokilani Yes, don't kill, unless for some groups that pray to another god, kill them, and take their young virgins for yourself. Very absolute. But seriously, is that what you mean by absolute? Categorical?
TheLittleDonkey 9 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey Whoa buddy! If a Christian kills someone it is in spite of their beliefs not because of their beliefs. I think the real point is that nobody, believer or non-believer inherently wants to kill someone for no good reason. We all are naturally turned off to doing harm to others and that is where God comes in. The purely naturalist or purely Atheist view doesn't account for evil. Not trying to start an argument just felt like giving another perspective.
perfectfailure23 9 months ago
@perfectfailure23 yes, I think we agree. My comment was in response to a claim that something woudl be absolute/ultimate, if it were categorical. I don't think that is what most Christians mean when they talk about an absolute standard. My comment was just to point out that God has commanded killing, and at the same time by the law forbid killing. So, even if that was to be the meaning of absolute standard, it doesn't work.
TheLittleDonkey 9 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey Is there a difference between killing and murdering? If the command was: Thou shalt not kill, would that not include almost all forms of life? Would we not be able to kill any animal or plant in order to keep ourselves from starving?? No, the command must have been: Thou shalt not murder. Which would mean killing humanity (at least) with unlawful subjective intentions? If we cannot understand the original concepts of some of the terms, how can we debate the issue at all?
Redington931 8 months ago
@Redington931 yes, the context of the law is probably, you shalt not murder your fellow Jew.
TheLittleDonkey 8 months ago
Your premise that all religious people define evil as supernatural is faulty. Evil is nature in the thoughts, actions and nature of human beings. That is the basis for the law of G-d. So your own conclusions are faulty. Our sinful nature is based in our fleshly nature, which is born out in observation. Even good children will kill other children if they are unsupervised and become angry. So, is YOUR premise: the moral lawmakers establish laws in violation of their own evil nature as humans?
liliokilani 9 months ago
If the question is about evil, then one must assume that there is good. The problem lies with the law giver. If it is society, then its by popular vote. If it is by government then it is placed on us. If it is by the bible(religion), then it is commanded by us to follow. I don't think I like morals to be govern by popular vote. They vary greatly and then who is to say which people are right. We do need a solid foundation on ethical behavior. Not one that is convenient at any particular time.
onemarktwoyou 9 months ago
@onemarktwoyou I recommend the moral landscape by Sam Harris
TheLittleDonkey 9 months ago
I think you misunderstand the nature of God. We are free to choose evil or good and free love our creator or turn away from him. In the same way, your children or family choose to love you. What if you could make them love you and they had no choice in the matter? That kind of love could never be the same as their choosing to love you. It's the same for God. He gives us the same choice. He could make us love him but then it really wouldn't be love. Free will sadly means you can choose evil.
wbvvmd1234 9 months ago
@wbvvmd1234 Except that the price of "turning away from him" is eternal torture. I don't know about you, but I don't teach my children that they deserve eternal torture, and that the only salvation for them is to love me. Doesn't sound very "free" is you ask me.
TheLittleDonkey 9 months ago
@wbvvmd1234
I am confused with your reply? I said God commands. I did not say that you could not refuse. My statement was more or less a disagreement with the idea that society should be what we base morals on. There is no consistency of ethical standards held by people for generations without baseline or laws (both by man or God) to compare right and wrong with. What it would end up being is a personal belief and personal choice of one's self worth to another person's self worth. Chaos.
onemarktwoyou 9 months ago
@wbvvmd1234 Agree. The established NATURE of the supernatural evil is that it seeks to take away free will of the individual. That is also the premise of all dictatorships. G-d is not a dictator. Evil is necessary so that there can be free choice. Therefore all of Epicurus' premises are based on the assumption that to allow evil and not take action against it is a sign of either powerlessness or an evil intent. His P3 is itself an unsupported assumption!!!
liliokilani 9 months ago
@Thelittledonkey Please search youtube for this: Ravi Zacharias: An Evangelical Understanding of Postmodernism 2 / 4 WATCH it it explains how ravi arrives from moral law to moral giver at about 6:00
willph18 9 months ago
@thelittledonkey While I agree, He does make a few assumptions hismself. Age is NOT a good analogy to deeds. right and wrong are ENGRAINED in society. You claim tha You are RIGHT, that some deeds are "hard to define" what is good and what is eveil, right and wrong. Age describes US, right and wring describe what we DO and SAY. major issue there. So, are you sure you are correct?, It seems that its hard to define whether your statement is right or wrong about ravi's argument. See the problem???
willph18 9 months ago
Comment removed
willph18 10 months ago
What he is suggesting is that there is an absolute good and evil, thus just as there is an absolute way to define age there must also be an absolute way to define good and evil. It is this definition that is moral law, whatever form it takes. His argument then to a moral law giver is that only something which is omniscient is fully qualified to grade standing on moral law because moral philosophy and social agreement are clearly not absolute. This omniscient being is God.
gschofield1 10 months ago
@gschofield1 sure, but nature and definition is not the same. There being a absolute doesn't mean that it can be defined.
TheLittleDonkey 10 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey ... but you agree that an absolute exists. And philosophy and social agreement are insufficient. The definition suggests something that transcends subjective human feelings. It is objective moral values. Objectively Evil vs. Objectively Good. All human beings subscribe to this DESPITE our subjective feelings.
WMsReligion 10 months ago
@WMsReligion no, I do not! I just don't rule out the possibility that they may exist, that doesn't mean that I agree that they do.
TheLittleDonkey 10 months ago
The fact that there IS so much EVIL in the world- ABSOLUTELY shows that SO MUCH HATE, EVIL, PERVERSE, MURDEROUS, TWISTED things that men do- ABSOLUTELY PROVES that WE are much,much more than the final byproduct of evolution. SCIENCE CANNOT ANSWER SO MANY QUESTIONS about life, and the answers will never be found in science. THE fact that there is so much horrific cruelty in men, HAS TO BE FROM SOMETHING OUTSIDE OF EVOLUTION, and a purposeless. If you look around at what people are like today,
TheWayandWordofLife 10 months ago
@TheWayandWordofLife why do you capitalize random words? Humans are not the final byproduct of evolution, it is not final, and it is not more evolved than any other today living organism. However, you are just rambling and I don't think you are here to discuss, so bye, and take care.
TheLittleDonkey 10 months ago
ACTUALLY, HE DOES explain WHY There are set moral laws of Good, and Evil- and how God is who tells uf what is good, and what is bad. Evolution, atheism - CANNOT, and never will be able to give adequate reasons as to why there is obviously great evil in the world, and a constant struggle with it, and why is it hard for us to be good, unless we have a very strong sense of values??? His answer to the question is in two parts- the second part of his answer was directly afterwards- which for SOME
TheWayandWordofLife 10 months ago
@TheWayandWordofLife do you think that evolution tries to answer why a good, powerful god isn't doing anything to reduce suffering?
TheLittleDonkey 10 months ago
I'll try and make this simple, you have two options:
1) Morality is interpretive -------> You
2) Morality is not interpretive --------> Me
NodeRanvier 10 months ago
@NodeRanvier morality can't be interpretive and not interpretive at the same time.
TheLittleDonkey 10 months ago
Comment removed
NodeRanvier 10 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey [this conversation is continued via pm's]
TheLittleDonkey 10 months ago
A serial killers definition of "betterment" is probably much different than yours and according to you, since morality is interpretive, he is not wrong in his assumptions. By your own definition he cannot be wrong, he is only interpreting his morality in a different way. On what basis can you condemn a serial killer and not contradict your own ideas about morality. You can't.
NodeRanvier 10 months ago
its nice you're trying to disprove his theories. I have to say, unfortunately I was disappointed with your arguments. They were not established on sound foundation, you simply at the end of each of Ravi's statements conclude that it doesn't work. Ravi's simple statements in his video can be expanded upon and is philosophically sound, unfortunately to say, yours is an opinion that is not sustainable in a philosophical debate.
That said, good try. I liked the presentation and music choice.
9xixix9 11 months ago
@9xixix9 well, thank you. This is a very old video and I would suspect that I would have done it differently today. However, first of all Ravi's argument is not a theory. Second, in a argument, if the argument is sound, the conclusion follows from the premises, if they are correct, so pointing out that they are not is kind of important. Third, Ravi's argument is not sustainable in a philosophical debate, so why would a critique of them somehow be philosophically sustainable?
TheLittleDonkey 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(Ezekiel 23:20)
She lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose semen was like that of horses.
Genitals = Mans private part
Semen = Sperm
Can any christian Mother read this front of her daughter or son?
[Quran 2:79]
Therefore, woe to those who distort the scripture with their own hands, then say, "This is what Allah has revealed," seeking a cheap material gain. Woe to them for such distortion, and woe to them for their illicit gains.
123footballers 11 months ago
If God wanted to create humanity with the ability to love then free will would have to be a component of that creature, which would mean that humanity would have to have the ability to love or not to love. In choosing not to love one can choose to do harm. This allows the possibility of doing evil.
stauguastine 11 months ago
@stauguastine I don't get it. Why would God need to give humans free will in order for them to love? It doesn't make sense.
TheLittleDonkey 11 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey lets say you have a son. As his parent you want him to be successful and happy in life so you give him the best advice about life. If he doesn't listen you can try to force him to do something. Now, if you had the power to control him; save him from suffering, would you? But what would be the point? Is that really an expression of love? As his parent all you can do is advice. God can absolutely control us, he wants to stop the suffering! But that means taking away our freedom.
9xixix9 11 months ago
@9xixix9 Let's say you have a son. You raise him up to be a good person (though he survives only because you didn't stone him like the bible wants) you love him and want him to be happy. He comes to the conclusion that some of what you told him is wrong. What do you do? Do you do what god would do and burn him for all eternity? If god wants to stop the suffering, why doesn't he? If you were interested in free will you do not punish people FOR ETERNITY for CHOOSING not to worship you/ bow down.
arithine 10 months ago
@arithine Everything you have said is a perception that the world has created. (ex. he doesn't "burn" people in hell. Hell is a place that people choose to go bc they don't believe or do not want to believe in God. If you don't want to go to heaven (which is to be in the presence of God) then you would go to hell, which is the absence of God. Your Choice, its that simple.
9xixix9 1 week ago
@arithine I understand where you're coming from. All I can say is, if there was a God of love, someone who really created us and truly loves us, then I'd want to find out who he is and really does he exist. I nvr believed in God and fought it for a long time. I grew up in a nation where the govn't would jail you for it. But my life changed after I started to ask these ques and truly sought the answer with an open mind. I don't know all the answers.. just that my life has changed for the better.
9xixix9 1 week ago
The atheist is attempting to use the absolute to disprove an absolute, which is self-refuting. I am not saying that all atheists are immoral and neither is Ravi. Nevertheless, the atheist has no philosophical foundation to make a moral claim on an objective or absolute basis.
stauguastine 11 months ago 2
Many of you do not understand Ravi's position and the position of the atheist positing the argument. If there is no God then materialism is all that is left. That is, moral relativism. With moral relativism whatever a person, group of people, or individual views as moral or immoral then it becomes valid. However, to posit this argument to disprove an objective moral law giver is positing from the objective or absolute, which is Ravi's point. An atheist cannot sustain this line of reasoning.
stauguastine 11 months ago
@stauguastine Wrong, there are many ways in which to define morality. The big philosophical guns that tackle the subject tend to lean away from god. We are not responsible to god but we are responsible to each other. What actions benefit our survival? Do your actions harm another human being? Morality is not black and white. It is not easy to determine what is moral, but it can all be explained without a god, and it is possible to discover what is right and wrong (objectively) without a god.
arithine 10 months ago
I just finished explaining all that to someone on another thread.
Nice to see it laid out.
I'm always happy to stop Ravi in his summation.
" .. if there is no moral law then there is no moral law giver .. "
Right!
So if you allow that Ravi, then I don't need the question of evil...
you're agreeing that if you can't prove moral law then there is no god.
Too easy.
Roper122 11 months ago
...not believe in anything which is moral. Morallity does not exist for the person who doess not believe in an absolute morallity.
NodeRanvier 11 months ago
@NodeRanvier it is impossible to follow you when you make serial comments. I'm out.
TheLittleDonkey 11 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey Maybe for you it is hard to follow.
NodeRanvier 11 months ago
...like for enjoyment. Well it just so happens that serial killers enjoy killing people, and rapists enjoy raping people. If life were about fun then you could justify these actions. The only reason to condem these actions in your world view is to ensure that it doesn't happen to you. There is nothing moral about that.
NodeRanvier 11 months ago
@NodeRanvier I think none of us thinks that every morality is equal. The difference is only that you think your moral is superior because you think a god told you so.
TheLittleDonkey 11 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey You didn't even adress a single point I made. I made it clear why morallity from a power which transcends humans is important and why humans placing value on morallity isn't actually morallity at all. For the record you suck at debating.
NodeRanvier 11 months ago
@NodeRanvier it would be easier to discuss with you if you made one post rather than several. However, If morality that transcends humans is important or not, have nothing to do with if it is true.
TheLittleDonkey 11 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey That's true, but if you're right then you must concede that the entire concept of morallity does not exist for atheists. This is my main point. I've already given you the reasons why in earlier posts.
NodeRanvier 11 months ago
@NodeRanvier Yes, but I don't agree with you. Just because morality isn't absolute, if it isn't, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Further, claiming using an absolute standard doesn't make it absolute. You still have ahead of you to show how you can know the standard, and further, to show that that is an absolute standard. Just stating "absolute morality seems like a good idea, well I have that and you have it not" doesn't really cut it.
TheLittleDonkey 11 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey I'm sorry but your paragraph didn't make much sense to me. "Yes, but I don't agree with you." - saying yes implies that you agree with me. You misunderstood my point: if morallity isn't absolute and in fact a human creation, then it has no value (I have already provided reasons why). I have no way to prove that an absolute morallity exists, I was never debating that; frankly, whether it exists or not is irrelevent. If you do not believe in an absolute morallity, then you do...
NodeRanvier 11 months ago
@NodeRanvier Are you saying that without god you would be a murderer? I'm sorry but it would seem you do good only so you don't piss off your giant sky daddy. I on the other hand do good for goods sake. I'm sorry but god is not the only way to define morality. Let me ask you this, is what is good good because god says so? Or is it good for other reasons and he just delivers the message? In the first scenario god could make rape moral if he wanted, but in the second god isn't really needed.
arithine 10 months ago
@arithine No I'm saying that there is no reason not to kill somebody for your own gain, outside of being punished by other humans, if God does not exist. If God doesn't exist morality is intrepretive, therefore a serial killer is interpreting his morality correctly and you have no basis to condemn him on that. The only reason to condemn him is to ensure that said serial killer does not hurt YOU. There is nothing moral about what I just described, it's actually selfishness.
NodeRanvier 10 months ago
@arithine To answer your second question, yes; what is good is good because God said so. It is significant because a being greater than myself sets the standard of morality, as opposed to fellow humans setting the standard which ulitmately has no meaning to me. What you think is right means nothing to me. Yes God could make rape moral, and then we as humans would feel a deep personal satisfaction from the act, but alas he has made hurting people immoral and you feel shitty when you do.
NodeRanvier 10 months ago
@arithine Lastly I have a question to ask you:
If God is not the standard on which you base your morals, what is and why is the reasoning for basing it on your standard significant? More specifically, why is that reason significant to reality?
NodeRanvier 10 months ago
@NodeRanvier When we think about other people we need to understand that they are people. They are not inferior nor are they superior then you are (where morality is concerned). They deserve the same treatment you do. Morality comes from the fact that we are conscious. When the survival of the species is concerned morality plays a large part. The religious morality does not change, meaning it can not improve. Killing another human being is generally not conductive to our survival. [cont.]
arithine 10 months ago
@arithine You didn't adress my points but whatever, I'll adress yours though.
"They are not inferior nor are they superior then you are (where morality is concerned). They deserve the same treatment you do."
Why exactly do they deserve the same treatment as me? Because they're humans? That means nothing to me. Why is that reason significant? You just made your own interpretation of morality, like the serial killer in my analogy, and his worldview is just as valid as yours.
NodeRanvier 10 months ago
@NodeRanvier [...cont] When morality is viewed as something which is used to increase our survival and contributing to the betterment of mankind we understand why something is moral or immoral and do not leave the reigns to a higher power which claims to be the source of all good. We are able to change and improve our morality meaning we have the ability to find a greater understanding about ourselves. We do not need to be gods toys, kissing his feet with the threat of hell to keep us in line.
arithine 10 months ago
@arithine The first statement in this paragraph is self contradictory, if one is doing a good action to be seen by other humans it ceases to be moral. Also, you mention the betterment of mankind? What is better? Why do you get to decide what is better? According to you, every human being is equal therefore everyone else is just as valid in deciding as you. Therefore, in your worldview, morality does not even exist.
NodeRanvier 10 months ago 2
@NodeRanvier sorry to impose on your discussion, but how can you say that caring about others invalids morality? Are you defining morality as altruism now?
TheLittleDonkey 10 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey I've explained this many times but I'll do it again. What I'm saying is that when an atheist "cares" about somebody he is only doing so to benefit himself, either consciously or unconciously. Consciously to be seen by other humans and thus feel good about himself, or unconsciously because it is an evolutionary trait.
NodeRanvier 10 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey
Evolutionists have accepted this line of thinking. Richard Dawkins response to this argument is something along the lines of "So what if it's a horrible reality, it doesn't make it not true." Which is true. Therefore you have two options:
1) Take on faith that God exists and thus morality and purpose, or
2) Do not believe in the existence of God, thus invalidating morality and purpose (beyond reproduction).
NodeRanvier 10 months ago
@NodeRanvier sure I accept that. But you can't just believe it to be otherwise, and thereby making it so. Furthermore, believing in god doesn't make your morality more than pleasing god or saving your eternal soul either.
But to cut the to the chase, and this is the important bit, regardless of what the scientific explanation for morality is, it doesn't change our morality. Do you stop to enjoy the sunset when you know that is it just a giant ball of burning gas?
TheLittleDonkey 10 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey PM me, it's getting crowded with multiple discussions.
NodeRanvier 10 months ago
@NodeRanvier I could easily say the reason you do good is because God is watching over you and you don't want to disappoint him. I'm sorry but as a sentient being I understand other people are sentient beings, I do not do good so other people will see me as good, but because it is good.
My morality is based off of a goal, the betterment of mankind. You're morality is based off of the arbitrary decisions god makes, I feel my morality is more objective/ real then yours.
arithine 10 months ago
@arithine You do good because it is good to do good. Okay. This begs the question why is it good to do good? Also, who defines good? Hitlers idea of good was much different than yours I'm sure. With no absolute definition of good or evil people will interpret morality in whatever way they want, thus no morality as it is different for each person. I don't know how much simpler I can put it.
Also, you have it wrong for why Christians do good.
NodeRanvier 10 months ago
@arithine Your goal, or reason for doing good (even though you just said you do good for no goal but for the sake of good...), is the betterment of mankind, but I asked you in an earlier post what the word "betterment" means. You didn't answer and I assume that is because you don't know how to answer the question.
NodeRanvier 10 months ago
We don't think atheists are evil because they don't believe in God. We just don't understand you having a reason for morals at all because in your world view the entire concept of morality does not exist. You only purport to have morals in order to be, unconsciously, accepted by other humans, which in turn helps you survive. The only reason for surviving scientifically speaking, is to carry on your genetic material. But you claim you live for purposes other than reproduction...
NodeRanvier 11 months ago
If there is no absolute moral truth, then one persons Good - Hitler, for example, is another persons evil. And we wouldn't be justified in fighting someone like Hitler as he is just as moral as anyone else. In fact even comparing his morality to someone else's is non-sensical.
NodeRanvier 11 months ago
@TheLittleDonkey I'm not saying atheist are without morals, merely that those morals become irrational. If the purpose of my life just becomes my survival-survival of my DNA vs others-that can have scary consequences. Even if we zoom out to the society level, and even if we zoom out to the human race; the consequences are severe. I take no offense to your words.
JohnFGoforth 1 year ago
@JohnFGoforth I see. But why do you think that the purpose of life should be survival? Just because a rock falls to the ground, it doesn't make it its purpose. The moral principle behind the reasoning you present is odd to me. For example, just because we have urges to reproduce, why should we make that our moral guideline and purpose of life?
TheLittleDonkey 1 year ago
@TheLittleDonkey What else would be the purpose of life? A rock, to be a rock, must obey the laws of gravity. A life, to be alive, must survive. Maybe property is a better word that purpose here. If a property of life is that it lives and carries on DNA and if it has no purpose other than it the evolutionary sense to not die and to pass on its DNA. What value does another human being have to you?
JohnFGoforth 1 year ago
@JohnFGoforth tremendous! I don't know of anything so remarkable as to be alive. If we are just products of evolutionary history is irrelevant to what value I put on human life.
TheLittleDonkey 1 year ago
First off i don't think you really understand what he was trying to say. Just because you don't believe in God does not mean that there is no moral law. Also i think that you don't know what the definition of evil is. Evil is the absence of God, or in a since going in your own way (apart from God). Killing a child is not going in the way(or moral law) that God wants therefore it is evil. Lastly i would love to see you debate Ravi sometime... i'm sure you will win....lol
crimsonfish13 1 year ago
@crimsonfish13 hi there. I haven't claimed that there necessarily isn't a moral law regardless of the existence of god. Second, the definition of evil isn't absence of God. One definition of evil is absence of god. If you try to imagine holding the belief that there is no god and that the definition of evil as absence of god, you will realized how insane such a belief would be. Everything would be by default evil. Lastly, I'm sure he would kill me in a debate, but I fail to see the relevance.
TheLittleDonkey 1 year ago
The argument that Zacharias disproves is: "There is evil therefore God does not exist." Even an athiest has to reject this, but the rejection does not prove God's existence.
You redherring the issue with the trilemma, which does not prove or disprove the existence of God, merely the issue of God's Omnipotence and/or Omnibevenolence. By accepting the third choice of the trilemma you are adopting that there is a God and he is not omnibenevolent, thus God exist and evil exist.
Got it? <