The answer to The Problem of Evil:
Presence of evil = presence of good = presence of moral law = presence of moral law enforcer (that you are trying to disprove)
If there is no moral law enforcer, there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, there is no good. If there is no good, there is no evil. WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION??

Love the way he put it. I never thought much of this argument anyway.

To You I call, O Lord my Rock;
Do not turn a deaf ear to me.
For if You remain silent,
I will be like those who have gone down to the pit.
Psalm 28:1


7 responses to “genius.

  1. The assumption of universal good and universal evil takes away the question of how good and evil are
    1. socially constructed
    2. and ignores empirical evidence against such universality
    3. negating at best, a continuum rather than absolute points of ‘good and evil’. As Sartre has argued, between choosing to stay at home to care for your ailing mother (who only has you) and to defend the country from an external threat, there can be no universal correct decision to make, but only a decision to make.

    By working within the paradigms of good and evil without questioning them and putting them to means of verification or definition, Ravi is rational (as all religions are). Nevertheless, a false assumption and the following conclusion is always correct because there are no means to test it.

    I also question an atheist who would change his worldview after one question and the legitimacy of Ravi’s statement.

    The question self destructs because the question itself was not problematized. In the pursuit of truth, everything should be put to question.

    Even within Ravi’s paradigm, the presence of universal good or universal evil and thus universal law does not necessitate that there is a singular law maker or any law maker at all. There is therefore no logical coherence between this statement and the statement on Jesus dying on a cross. In conflating these factors, Ravi was slipping in his own assumptions without acknowledging them.It is also note worthy that evil suddenly became ‘a force’ and a force that has to be ‘countered’ and that we suddenly need forgiveness towards the end of the video.

    There is no reason to believe that the creator of this world (if he/she exists) is benevolent. He/she could be totally evil and goodness came as a rebellion. Because we do not have a means to test this, we will never know.

  2. Oh yes and I forgot this thought experiment that I once have.

    Now if Evil exists because of Good. Then technically, it is pointless to destroy either Evil or Good because one will lead to another. In terms of equation,

    -(-P) = P

    Therefore if you –(-P)= -P

    Meaning, if you take away Evil, Good will then become Evil because when there is Good there must be evil. So the ‘good’ that you gain from removing evil creates evil within the original good.

    Logically speaking, we should destroy both good and evil at the same time, thus, if God is Good then He/She must die together with Evil.

  3. hmm of course, Ravi has simplified the problem of evil for the laymen but i do think it’s sufficiently cogent. i think he may just be showing how the presence of evil used as an argument against the existence of God is not a solid enough one. (i think) not that it automatically concurs with the story of Jesus and other things.

  4. But evil is neither defined nor problematized. What Ravi has shown is that in accepting it to be an absolute and universal, unproblematic category, it belongs within the same paradigm. However, the moment we question these categories, the paradigm falls apart. How do we know good and evil ‘exists’, is ‘sbsolute’ and is ‘christian’?

    Ravi built up a strawman which makes his paradigm appear ‘logical’ when it is merely rational. As I showed, logically speaking, his paradigm would mean that we must kill both good and evil, since the removal of one would achieve nothing.

    Even if we accept his initial assumption that if there is such a thing as good then there is an assumption that there is such a thing as evil, However, a moral order does not necessitate a ‘law giver’. This is because, if P (good) equals to -(-P) where -P is evil, then anything that negates good is evil. There is therefore no need for a law giver, but merely the recognition of opposites in order to justify this paradgim.

    This leads back to the question, how do you know what is good or evil? What is the method for truth? The common answer I assume, is to ‘go back to the bible’. But what if the Bible was written by ‘forces of evil’ that makes you think that evil is good? Since the recognition of one gives you recognition for the other, you would have no way to tell which side is which except that they are opposites.

    How then do you decide that the position of the bible is ‘good’? What if anyone who told you that it is ‘good’ could be lying as well? Since ‘evil’ lies and deceives all the time, what guarantee do you have that evil was not writing in the name of good and giving good all the bad marketing by labelling it ‘the devil’?

    The fundamental difference between this mode of questioning and a Socratic one, is that a Socratic inquiry posits that a person has the ability to know, while a religious perspective relies on ‘divine revelation’, which always insist that we abandon our sense of logic since logically, it is incoherent.

  5. Btw, I am using Augustine’s paradigm in arguing Ravi’s case, and showing that both are insufficient. As Augustine writes, what is not good is evil, the absence of light is darkness.

    Having thought through his paradigm, I concluded that it does not make logical sense to believe anything that he says. as I commented above.

    Sigh can you go set up the dead poets society val! We need to like get likeminded people to talk about these things!

  6. Oh ya btw i am putting this on facebook :)

  7. aahhh..very nice argument..esp by joshua, cheers man!!

    something u might like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s