Understanding Ravi Zacharias' famous argument

Does Ravi Zacharias prove that the old Epirucis question of

"Is God both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?"

is invalid, and that without God, there can not be anything evil?

Category:

Education

Tags:

• ravi
• zacharias
• evil
• world
• christian
• atheist
• christianity
• apologetics
• christ
• cross
• repentance

[jahdiel781]

Kant and Hume both would grant that objective morality points to God. And why raise the problem of evil if evil is inherently subjective? Thus Ravi is justified in assuming morality to be objective, and like Kant and Hume, moral objectivity is grounded in God.

[TheLittleDonkey]

@jahdiel781 why is that? Kant would certainly point to God, but surely not Hume? However, it doesn't matter what thinkers have thought. Neither have shown it to be so. I find it just as easy to imagine a law of physics without God as a do an objective morality without God. Do you find that possible at all, or do you have an argument that show that it's not possible?

[patriciacarrasco]

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

[TheLittleDonkey]

@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?

[AxeMan0170]

@TheLittleDonkey I Think you are making a mistake by comparing moral laws and laws of physics. The former tell us what is and isn't acceptable, the latter explains how things work. The former has large implications and effects on the sanctity of human life and can 'physically' be broken, if you choose to. The latter try as you might cannot be broken and even if you did would not have moral implications. Humanity, by nature, is flawed therefore not objective, hence: "we are only human"

[TheLittleDonkey]

@AxeMan0170 yes sure, the analogy is flawed and isn't to be taken literally. The point is that as long as we can agree on a general goal, e.g. health, happiness or fulfilment or whatever, the effect of different methods and moral guidelines to achieve that can be investigated and measured. Much in the same way as the laws of physics cannot tell us where we should place an object, only how much work would be required to put it there.

[9xixix9]

@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]

@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.

[hatemorethanyou999]

This guy badly needs a class in basic logic.

[TheLittleDonkey]

@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.