There would not be a right or wrong unless God existed, that’s what I believe. Bertrand Russell disagrees. Before giving his argument against the moral argument for deity in his writing of “Why I Am Not A Christian,” he first said that he is not concerned with the difference between right and wrong. This dissimilarity cannot be overlooked because that belief hinges upon the difference and the existence of both sides. By accepting that either right or wrong exists, Russell assumed a moral law; when Russell suggested that, “it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good, ” he evoked a standard by which what is “good” can be determined. He is in this situation illustrated by Philosopher Dr. Ravi Zacharias: Right or wrong cannot be possible unless there is a likelihood of their counterpart. In other words, people cannot be aware of the presence of evil unless there is something to compare it to. Additionally, both good and evil are only possible to distinguish from each other so long as there is some means that is used to differentiate between the two. This would be the moral standard.