One of the hardest questions that I believe there is for a Christian to answer is why God doesn’t intervene to stop evil or at least stop those who are doing evil in some way. Ravi is asked this in a very pointed question in this video and I think he does a great job answering. . . check it out.
This was a pretty horrible reply by RZ.
Ravi Zacharias POE video
Why doesn’t god intervene…
Q: you (RZ) said God watched evil happen. Why didn’t god intervene, stop the man from pulling the trigger, (turn the bullet to water…).
RZ: God gave us love (F). Love is awesome (T). Somehow this is relevant (F)
Love often involves valuing others (T) such as to protect them/not kill them (T)
Oscar Wilde’s lover loved others selfishly (T?)
Love is the supreme ethic (T for some)
Love requires freedom (F, true if so defined)
Love here is defined as something that requires freedom (T)
So robots can never “love” (True by Definition)
God intervening at all on the world will violate our free will (F) and make us robots (F)
If god were to always intervene, it will be absurd (F, and straw person)
If one thinks god should always intervene, then one thinks god should intervene when hot water might scald you. (T)
If god always intervened for the best, if you are about to be hit by a bus, he would stop it (T)
In such a world, we wouldn’t be human (F, we would have the same DNA)
God stopping murders etc might “seem” nice/good, but it isn’t! (4:00)
God stopping the bus from hitting you is NOT protecting you, but the destruction of your free will (F), and in all cases, it would be better for god to let the bus kill you, so that you can keep your free will (F).
Either we are robots, or we are free and god can’t ever intervene (F)
X asked a question (T), and X is/seems “free” (T), and one freedom is to love (T), and thus…?
Some are assuming blindly that god exists and has the supreme knowledge to “bring a pattern” out of it all (T).
This is what we should do (F).
God “bringing a pattern” out of it all justifies not stopping Hitler (F)
We humans know a lot (T)
We don’t ever know what lies ahead (F)
The future (particular assumptions/guesses) are not certain (T)
When we die we will discover that god exists (F), and has good reasons for not stopping that murder (F).
You keep doing this pseudo logic by assigning (T)’s and (F)s to what you set up as my argument. None of this follows an actual logical argument and you often give truth values to things which are under contention and assume I should agree with you.
For instance “Love is awesome (T). Somehow this is relevant (F)” You must show me why it isn’t relevant simply saying it isn’t is not an argument but just a claim. If you want to go with a logical syllogism then we can actually break down the arguments but what your doing is not that.
You’re entire argument fails to understand what the significance of an all-knowing God would be. Let me put this simply as a child you and I both probably had times that our parents did things we would not have done if we were the adults. They ate vegetables, went to work, cleaned their rooms, despite the fact they were adults and had the power not to do so. As a child we saw those as worthless and invaluable in one sense as a child we may have even called those things ‘evil’. But our parents as adults knowing and understanding more saw that there were good things that come from those things.
When you and I see evil in the world and ask why God would allow such things we are again like children who do not see the bigger picture. You may ask how can good come from my uncle fighting pancreatic cancer for 4 years and then finally dying. A great question. But if Christianity is true my uncle went through four years of suffering during which he came to Lord and now is experiencing an eternity of joy with the Lord.
If you wish to argue at this point that there must have been another way that my uncle could have come to the Lord you must remember you are a finite being and therefore it is possible that you are wrong that there is no other way.
So first: are you ever going to reply to my other posts?
As to this post, my assigning True and False to the claims is my way of taking notes. It should be helpful though in letting you know my thoughts. No, you shouldn’t interpret that as an argument. It is really there so that if you think one of my assessments is false, then say so, and then I will argue for it. It would be too time consuming (and a waste of time) to argue for every statement. You might agree that most of them are already true. So again, if you disagree with my an assessment, say which, and ask me to justify it, and of course, try to justify your dissent.
Assigning truth and falsity to claims is not “pseudo logic”. Yes, doing that is not an argument, nor did I claim it to be. No, I don’t “assume” you should agree with me. I anticipate that you will disagree about some things. I’m trying to help move the conversation forward to discover the particular things that we disagree about (so we can then give evidence and argument for those.
If you think Love is relevant to the issue we were discussing, YOU should say how. I don’t see the relevance. If you do, say what you see. Try to be helpful in demonstrating the truth of what we are discussing.
I’m happy to consider what you think “the significance of an all-knowing God would be”. Since there is no known such thing, it is hard to see what the “significance” of this falsehood is.
Yes, adults often know things that children do not. It doesn’t follow that god exists, knows everything, and knows more than we do.
We see evil/suffering. It (often) looks unjustified. It (often) looks like something that we as loving beings would try to stop. It looks like a perfect (all loving, all powerful…) being would stop Hitler from murdering. Hitler was not stopped from murdering many people. Hence there probably is no perfect being.
You are right: we do not know everything/see the entire picture. It follows from that we “could” be wrong about things. It doesn’t follow that we are wrong. If someone kills your parents, it could be justified, but if you find no evidence of that, we shouldn’t assume that it is justified. It looks unjustified/unloving, etc.
I don’t doubt that suffering often leads to some good things. The challenge isn’t: is any suffering for the greater good? The challenge is: is all suffering for the greater good (as far as we know? The answer to the former is yes. The answer to the latter is no.
When we see suffering we should see whether it is justified to have allowed it. When a parent lets their child struggle to tie their shoe, it is justified. But when a parent lets their child murder or be murdered, it is not. That some suffering is justified doesn’t negate the fact that some suffering is unjustified.
Yes, if one dying of cancer is the only way to get eternal life, then it is justified. Dying of cancer is not a way (nor the only way) of getting eternal life.
It is possible that I am wrong. That is not to show that I am probably wrong.
But to get back to the video: RZ does not show that a perfect being would rightly choose to not intervene to stop Hitler from killing, or the rapist from raping.
He has 2 arguments:
1. When we die, we will find out what god’s justification is for not intervening.
Response: we don’t know any of this to be likely.
2. If God ever intervened, all of us would be turned into robots, which is worse.
Response: We have no reason to think this is likely.