Moral and Scientific Objections to Christianity

I was beginning to think I wasn't going to be able to debate this with him Rebuttal: Christianity hinders moral thought What is moral? What is good? What is evil? What makes secular progressive liberalism preferable and how does Christianity "weight it down"? In America, we elected Barack Obama seeking a change from the mess that George W. Bush made of the country. In being elected, Obama has allowed SCOTUS to FORCE his will upon the country for whatever reason. I understand this may not seem to coincide with the debate subject matter, but I bring this up to illustrate that government intervention is NOT indicative of a shift in societal morals. These socalled "moral stances" on things such as same sex marriage have not changed because our morals and values have changed, but because of government intervention. Two totally different things. Again, I must ask what is good and what is evil? Matt Slick, of CARM. org has the best rebuttal to this [. https://carm.org...]. Consider Epicurus. Epicurus made four statements on God and Evil: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? This is easily refutable. I will do it just like Matt Slick did. Con asserts that Christianity "lags behind modern moral values". Let's look at how Matt Slick answers this: 1. Evil is not defined. Therefore, the assessment of the statements cannot be validated What Matt is referring to here is Epicurus' statement on evil. What is evil? It is not defined. Likewise my question to Con is what is moral? Con may have hinted at this without actually outright saying it. I don't know Now let's look at Matt's second rebuttal to Epicurus: 2. If evil were defined, what would justify the definition as being the right one? I would like to ask Con the same thing. What can he offer to justify his assertions that secular morals are right and Christian morals are wrong? To make this more difficult for Con, I offer this example: Person A is the head of a Manson Family type cult. Person A, unlike Charles Manson though, likes to participate in the killings his cult commits Person B likes to rob banks Person C likes to creepily hang out in front of the middle school every day in hopes of luring one of the children to get in a car with him so that he may abuse them. Now here are two questions I will pose to Con: 1. Which person described above, according to secular views. would be considered moral? 2. Why? Through Christian morals, we realize that the answer to the first question is, none of the above. The answer to the second question is the Bible forbids it. God forbids it. A simple question requires a simple answer. No matter how simple the answer is, Christian morals give an answer. Secular morals do not Con also brings up abortion. Is the life of a fetus equally morally important as a fully grown human? Without Christianity we truly cannot answer that, because according to Christian morals, ALL life is valuable. Every life has a purpose and every life should be given a chance to fulfill that purpose. There is no "healthy dialogue and investigation" needed. How can con argue that not every life is valuable without coming off as cold and callous? Rebuttal: Christianity entails questionable beliefs/motivations As for Con's claim that Christianity or "belief in questionable supernatural motivations", when a crime of murder or other violence is committed by someone who claims "God made them do it", more often than not, the Christian community condemns the crime. How can an adherent to a peaceful faith commit something so heinous and not be condemned? Couple that with the fact that those instances are pretty rare, and Con has no legs to stand on. I like Con's last paragraph as it gives me a chance to pose a question I don't get to pose very often. He talks about eternal damnation. We both agree that is bad. The parallel I will draw is this: I can only assume that Con's parents love him so I would ask con to think back to his childhood. Has he ever done anything to make his parents upset at him? Was he punished? Did his parents stop loving him when he was punished? Probably not. The same is somewhat true for Christianity. There is an out though. All you have to do is repent of your sins and accept Jesus Christ as savior and none of that is any longer a "threat". Now that I have successfully refuted the moral objections to Christianity, I pose one question as my contention: C1: given the above explanations as satisfactory to fulfill the requirement of refuting moral objections to Christianity, why do the scientific objections matter?