A Answers James Questions


A Answers James Questions

(1) The answer to this question is that if the Christian God is not necessary in order for humans to exist, then there is no good reason to believe in the Christian God since the Christian God is a Necessary Being, a Being that which cannot not exist, as well as necessary for continuing the existence of man and the universe. The fact is, however, that there are contingent beings in the universe, beings that do not have in their own essence to exist. To answer the question of why contingent beings exist, one cannot point to a contingent being since that would be begging the question and would not give an answer at all, even if there are an infinite number of contingent beings. The answer seems to me that there must be a self-existent, necessary being.

(2) The reason why the Christian God is superior than any other so-called gods is that the Christian God has vindicated His existence by raising Jesus from the dead. As I have shown, from the historical evidence, the most probable theory is that God raised Jesus from the dead. A majority of New Testament scholars believe that the historical Jesus was crucified, buried, and the tomb was found empty on Sunday morning. A majority of New Testament scholars also believe that people experienced the appearance of Jesus after his crucifixion and it was because of this belief that there was a Christian movement. My opponent has failed to show a naturalistic account of these facts from the evidence.

(3) The reason why I believe there needs to be some kind of Divine intervention is because it is very improbable that the universe that is life-permitting could have popped into existence from nothing or without an intelligent design. Also, there is DNA, which I know of no naturalist explanation for its existence. In fact, one of the most famous atheist philosopher of the last fifty years, Antony Flew, said:

"My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms." [1]

My opponent has not come up with any good naturalistic explanation for DNA. Also, I have argued that DNA is an example of specified complexity. A complexity with an independent pattern requires an intelligent design.

(4) I do believe that God is necessary for morality. My opponent, however, has used the word "practical morality" since he does not believe that there are objective moral values. However, this shows how superior the Christian position really is. He is saying that Nazism and 9/11 are not really evil. They are simply opinions of what is wrong in a culture. If this is true, then that means if I murdered his mother, then he has no right to condemn me since I have a different standard than him. The Christian position, however, says that there is an objective right and wrong. Murdering a person is objectively wrong no matter what anyone says. It also explains why people can argue in the first place. How can we argue unless there is a common ground, a universal standard that we can all appeal to?

My opponent in his second rebuttal said that if there is objective morality, then everyone would agree. But this does not follow at all. Just because there is an objective morality, it does not mean that people cannot be wrong about their opinions on what is right and wrong. Analogically, we can say the same of SAT tests. Just because there is an objective right answer to #1, it does not mean that everyone will agree to the answer of #1. It may be that some may get it wrong. Same with morality. If morality is objective, it does not mean that everyone has to agree or that no one can get it wrong.

(5) I believe what the Catholic Church teaches, that is, that anyone who, outside the visible structure of the Church, through no fault of their own, but follow the truth in some way, can be saved.

Notes

[1] http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

A
AVBCL111@aol.com

go to previousgo to previous statement Back to Latar vs. Brown Debate go to next statementgo to next


Back to Philosophy Articles

Back to Home Page

About | Apologetics | Philosophy | Spirituality | Books | Audio | Links