[caww]

One must question the questioner...on the matter of good and evil.

If there’s such a thing as evil, you assume there’s such a thing as good.

If you assume there’s such a thing as good, you assume there’s such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil.

If you assume there’s such a thing as a moral law, you must posit a moral law giver,..

..... ‘but that’s whom they are trying to disprove and not prove’.....

Because if there’s not a moral law giver, there’s no moral law.

If there’s no moral law, there’s no good.

If there’s no good, there’s no evil...... What is their question?

Why do you actually need a moral law giver if you have a moral law?

The answer is because the questioner and the issue he or she questions always involve the essential value of a person..... That is, you can never talk of morality in abstraction..... Persons are implicit to the question and the object of the question.

In a nutshell, positing a moral law without a moral law giver would be equivalent to raising the question of evil without a questioner......

So you cannot have a moral law unless the moral law itself is intrinsically woven into person-hood,.... which means it demands an intrinsically worthy person if the moral law itself is valued....... And that person can only be God......( speaker..Apologetics...Ravi Zachariah's)

“I am that I am”..saith the Lord.

[metmom]

Ravi ROCKS.

That is so right that if you take humans out of the equation, there is no basis for determining good and evil. Everything then, just is.

[metmom]

Well, actually, there is still Satan, but morals ARE for man.

Everything else just is.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for sharing those beautiful insights, dear sister in Christ!

[betty boop]

Dear sister in Christ, I find your logic impeccable, and your conclusion utterly reasonable.

Thank you ever so much for writing!