The Christian Worldview Project’s host Bro. Jordan had another debate on a very important topic. You can watch the entire debate here entitled “Does Morality Come from God?” It was hosted by Debaters Convention and the negative side, who is a deist, is Francis Sustento. He approached it presuppositionally as he gave an account for the hope that is in him. Here is his opening statement.
Before I present my case tonight let me clarify few things including what the debate is not about. Let us narrow down the topic to avoid any red herrings and strawman argumentations. So here are a few clarifications.
We are not arguing for the existence of God this evening. Both of us agree that God exists. But which God? Therefore, my opponent should understand that I am only arguing in favor of Christian theism. Because technically there is only one God and that is the Christian God. Therefore if he’s going to argue against my position apart from what I believe as a Christian about God then he is arguing with somebody else and not me. In fact, I will join him in debunking any form of theism if he wants to talk about them. But not this in tonight’s debate.
The Christian God according to our Reformed Baptist Catechism [Question 8]:
God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
The debate is not about my opponent’s personal opinion about God. Since in the deistic concept of theism, there is no absolute moral code because this God is unknown to them. They can’t even know if this God is a deistic concept of God if we are going to dig deeper.
The debate is also not about the alleged corruption or contradiction of the scripture. Rather the scripture must be presupposed to be true this evening and must be the standard to have an accurate knowledge of who the Christian God is. Let me also clarify that every single individual human being is made in the image and likeness of God. Meaning we were created as moral and rational creatures. Able to reason, and to do great ethical things. If in any case, my opponent would establish his position by simply assuming that every people has morals and therefore God is not the source of it since we can exercise morality is to commit a fallacy called begging the question. He already assumes the very thing he’s trying to prove. Let’s observe that in tonight’s debate.
Therefore, I encourage you guys who are watching tonight to please pay attention. Watch carefully if my opponent will attack the things I already clarified as irrelevant. If he is going to do that then it only means that my opponent, either’s not listening to the presentation or he’s completely ignoring it. Well if that’s the case then I will be glad to just tell him that “please go back to the debate, you are raising things that were already presented in the opening as irrelevant in tonight’s debate. Please only argue about the relevant things.
What the debate is about? The debate is about “Does Morality Come From God?” Therefore as the affirmative side this evening I will be proving to you that in the Christian Worldview, morality indeed comes from God and is absolute.
If I can show you proof that morality comes from God then the debate is concluded in my favor. On the other hand, my opponent must prove that morality does not come from God.
But since my opponent is a deist, meaning, he cannot know if morality comes from God or not since according to his belief, the deistic concept of God is unknown to them and that makes my opponent’s position self-defeating.
Let me establish it more. If the God of the universe is a deistic concept, then it will be impossible for us creatures to even know that the universe was created by this God, or we cannot even know if there is a God. We can only speculate if he exists. In the end, we will end up being clueless about Him.
The Transcendental Argument
I will be arguing transcendentally.
The transcendental proof of the Christian worldview is that if the Christian worldview is false, you cannot know or prove anything at all. It means that in order for us to know right from wrong, good from bad, we must presuppose God and His commands found in Scripture.
I encourage my opponent to be consistent in his critique against my worldview (we called that internal worldview critique) that apart from the scriptures I can’t know anything at all about God.
Now my opponent knows many things. In fact, I acknowledge his great intelligence over mine. The fact that he knows things proves that the Christian God is the source of everything. However, because he denies this God, the God of Christianity I will not ONLY be proving that God is the source of morality, BUT I WILL ALSO show that a denial of this truth will lead Francis’ worldview to utter absurdity.
Q. How do I know that God is the source of morality?
A. I can know it if God has spoken. And because God has spoken: God gave us a moral code. The 10 commandments: Exodus 20. God's commandment is based upon His holy nature. God's command is not arbitrary.
God commanded us not to murder because he is not a murderer. God commanded us not to lie because he is the truth and is logical. God commanded us not to commit adultery because God is loyal and loving. God commanded us not to steal because He is not a thief.
Now many will be raising their eyebrows because of what I just said. God is not a murderer and so on. I will be happy to engage those issues in future debates. But for now, I encourage my opponent to please focus on the real issue this evening.
Which worldview makes sense?
Is it a worldview that God is the source of morality or a worldview that God is not the source of morality?
If morality comes from God, then we have an appeal to an absolute standard upon which we can judge accurately what is right from wrong. If morality does not come from God then where do we get our morality? If it comes from man, then can one person’s moral stipulation be applied universally? If not then we have a very big problem.
For example, to murder is wrong. In the Christian worldview, we have a justification as to why murder is wrong. Because God tells us that it is wrong to murder and the basis of that command is his holy nature. Now, if morality comes from somewhere else and not God. Why would I be required to be morally accountable to someone who is the same being as I am? Why would I be required to be morally accountable for my actions in tonight’s debate? Why would I care to follow the rules set by the moderator? That is because, in light of these rules, we are assuming a being who is the source of morality. And that is none other than, the Christian God.
Let’s wrap up.
Both of us believe that God exists But only one of us believes that God is the source of morality. And that’s me. My opponent’s God is unknown to him. Meaning, he cannot know whether this God is the source of morality or not. He doesn’t have any access to even 0.0000001% of KNOWLEDGE that this God is the source of morality or not.
He is completely clueless about it. My God offers a covenantal relationship with his creatures such that we can know him for certain. Because “HE HAS SPOKEN”.
Therefore, from the two of us, I am the only one who can know that God is the source of morality. I am the only one who has a meaningful answer to offer in tonight’s debate and my opponent doesn’t have any meaningful argumentation to throw against my position since he’s agnostic about this issue. My opponent doesn’t have any clue. Again, pay close attention to what’s being said here. Thank you and God bless us all.
SOLI DEO GLORIA!