Today I want to briefly run-through the morality debate, give a summary of how it played out, why I think I lost, what I learned and how I should have argued, etc.. Before I forget, though, I want to note here that some other things I plan to discuss in the future are: my argument against post-modernism; my thoughts on the tithing debate (which I also lost); some discussion on slavery in the Bible; and my current understanding of some historical events, including the fall of Rome, and the development of Biblical canon.

Another thing before I dive into this. I'm going to write some of my thoughts on how I should have argued, but I recognize that I can't say "This would have won the debate for me" unless I go back to Logan Belcher and actually give him the argument... Hopefully he doesn't change his email before I get up the gusto to approach that.

So, here's how the argument went in a nutshell:

I gave the common Christian argument against any atheistic claims to morality, saying that they lack foundation. We discussed what grounds we have to claim any moral authority over others, even including our children. We discussed the role of fear in parenting (that is, whether it has any role and what that role may be), and we discussed how much a child needs to know about the reasons for a command before he is obligated to obey, and whether there is any such thing as obligation, etc.. These things, of course, directly relate to the topic of obedience to any authority, including God. Logan also gave the common arguments atheists give about the functional efficacy of certain atheist moral theories. I think I rather successfully demonstrated the arbitrariness and weaknesses of the various atheist moral claims offered, and Logan didn't seem to try very hard to fight that. It's not a difficult argument to make.

So why do I think I lost?

Logan asked me the same questions. Why obey God? Who cares? I gave several bad answers to this, drawing from the characteristics of God to make the argument that he is an authority due to his omnipotence, his omniscience, and his omnipresence, and the fact that he created everything with a purpose; but do we obey anyone who is more powerful than us? Do we obey anyone who knows more than us? Do we obey anyone who is bigger than us? Older than us? etc. Eventually, the thing I finally fell back on was holiness, because it's the only characteristic that no other thing has of their own or in any significant measure, but even then it was holiness that was the standard, and not God. Furthermore, skipping some cars in the long train of emails, my argument eventually mandated that I say that humans have intrinsic value and thus should not be murdered! How worthless an argument, and I knew it but I didn't know how to escape it!

Here's the problem: I was telling the atheist, "You have no ultimate foundation. Only God can function as an ultimate foundation". But then I was trying to justify God. If God is truly the ultimate foundation, then we MUST NOT present any justification underneath God, because then that justification is the new ultimate foundation! When the atheist asks, "Why?" and "So what?", God is and must be the end of the infinite regression. If I say that God is my ultimate standard, then that means that God looks to no other source in order to prove his validity and ultimacy.

So why do we know that logic is dependable, and that our senses more-or-less accurately depict the outside world? Because God told us when He knit us together in our mother's womb, and then affirmed it in His word.

Why do I love my neighbor instead of stabbing my neighbor? Because God told me to love my neighbor. Why do atheists love one another? Because they are created in the image of God, and so have God's laws written in their hearts. So why do bad people do bad things? Because they reject the God who they know from birth.

Then why do I believe that God exists? Because He told us that He exists.
So why don't I prove it? Where's my evidence? The evidence is all around us. Since you have already seen it, my pointing it out to you won't cause you to accept God. (Proverbs 26:4-5)

Now here is the critical point; the final bolt in the argument, which makes it a stumbling block to the "spiritual" person, and foolishness to the skeptic.

If you read the exceedingly long youtube conversation I posted before, you might notice that at one point I asked Logan if he had ever "experienced God", (I think this wasn't the best way to word it, but whatever). He responded saying that he didn't know.

Romans 1:18-23 (emphasis added)
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Things to note there: They suppress the truth by means of unrighteousness. Now, the only grace I can give to an atheist on this point is that they do it without thinking about it consciously. So why, then, do they not come to the truth when confronted with it? How can they continue to reject the obvious?

John 6:44
44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

John 6:65
65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

So nobody comes to Christ unless the Father first draws him (it is not by our choice that we receive it).

John 6:37-39
37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.

So every person who is drawn (given to the son) comes (it is not something we can choose to reject). Once someone is drawn, and comes, Jesus will never lose them (we cannot lose our salvation).

The point is: The Christian worldview is rock solid from within Christianity. Having God as an ultimate foundation is the only workable worldview; God is the end of the ultimate regression, but atheists will not accept it and will continuously seek to justify God. So, seeking to justify God, in itself, places God in a position of non-ultimacy, and so will never arrive at the truth of God's existence. Those who accept Jesus are those who God has drawn, and those who reject Jesus are those who God has not drawn.  Also see John 5:37-38  .

Well, that wasn't brief at all. I've already written too much for one blog, and if I go any further then I'm going to take thunder away from my future post on post-modernism.

"Jesus answered, 'I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.'"