A Replies to James Rebuttals
|A Replies to James Rebuttals
(1) I don't think my opponent even knows his question for me and how I answered it. I believe I have sufficiently responded to his claims from what I have said above.
(3) My opponent simply dismisses DNA as evidence for an intelligent design. Aside from polemics, however, he has not given a naturalistic explanation for chemical evolution.
(4) The SAT analogy shows how one can be wrong although it is objective.
With regards to 9/11 and Nazism, why does he think they are wrong? How can one condemn another without the same standard, a universal objective standard? My opponent has not given any explanation. Is that which is "wrong," simply that which does not work? His notion of "practical morality," is inferior to moral absolutes. With moral absolutes, we can see our mistakes and improve. We know, for example, that murdering innocent people is objectively wrong. That is why we try not to do it. We know that virtue is good and that's why we try to be virtuous. We have a goal to pursue and only a goal which does not move (absolute) can we attain progress.
(5) It is possible that people can go to hell. There is no salvation outside of Christ. He is the Judge.
go to previous Back to Latar vs. Brown Debate go to next
Back to Philosophy Articles
Back to Home Page
About | Apologetics | Philosophy | Spirituality | Books | Audio | Links