Response to CARM's Questions for atheists Q21 to 31.

This is the final segment responding to 31 questions presented at the C.A.R.M. website by Matt Slick aimed at atheists. Please read the other pages first to properly understand my responses as some refer back to earlier questions and answers.

 21. If there are moral absolutes, could you list a few of them?

I am not making the claim about moral absolutes, so no.

22. Do you believe there is such a thing as evil?  If so, what is it?

Ignoring the definitions used by Christians, which are mired in their presupposed theology, I could still refer to things or actions being evil in a secular way. Evil would be, for example, to knowingly inflict harm on innocent beings without just cause. This is of course open to debate, in regard to "harm", "innocent" and "just cause". 

23. If you believe that the God of the Old Testament is morally bad, by what standard do you judge that he is bad?
Empathy, Reason and Logic. Also by the Bible's own standards of morality apologetics love to pretend are infallibly correct. We point out the hypocrisy of such claims.
When apologetics try to justify rape, slavery and genocide as morally good, you know you made the right decision to leave Christianity. Apologetics have done more to solidify my deconversion than any argument from the atheists.

24. What would it take for you to believe in God?

Heal amputees in a double blind test, by only praying to Jesus according to the bible's claims. That would go a long way towards changing my mind.

25. What would constitute sufficient evidence for God’s existence?

Repeatable and verifiable events that match the claims in the bible and/or God or Jesus appearing and demonstrating to me (with independant unbiased witnesses) his power and answering 1st hand my doubts. Considering I don't even have a single reason to accept ANY supernatural claim, including something as basic as a soul or free will, I have high but easily attainable standards if a Christian God exists.

26. Must this evidence be rationally based, archaeological, testable in a lab, etc. or what?
As opposed to what? It depends on what is offered. Not everything has to be testable in a lab but it should be rational to accept a claim. Does Matt think irrational evidence should be acceptable?

27. Do you think that a society that is run by Christians or atheists would be safer?  Why?

In what context? Since atheism only deals with the claim about gods, it offers no guidance towards a political or economic society by itself, then this question is not properly formed to give a good answer.
Ideally if the atheists were secular and allowed people to hold religious belief in private, promoted scepticism and tried to justify their beliefs, in whatever system they use for politics and economics, using empirical data rather than state authority, then they would be safer than those that rely on a presupposed divine mandate to guide them. However the reduction in the influence of religion on society is only the first step in changing the attitudes of the human mind, not the final one. All the human weaknesses are still present and still need to be addressed in a healthy and productive manner.
It is a long road and no doubt a rocky one.
Also there is nothing to stop christians being part of the process, as long as they are willing to grasp that their private belief does not equal reality automatically. I would prefer if we could eventually dismiss labels completely in regard to religion and simply work on making this world better for everyone in it.

28. Do you believe in free will?  (free will being the ability to make choices without coersion).
 
Using your definition, free will cannot exist. There are always external and internal coersions to any choice you make.

29. If you believe in free will do you see any problem with defending the idea that the physical brain, which is limited and subject to the neuro-chemical laws of the brain, can still produce free will choices?
Not applicable.

30. If you affirm evolution and that the universe will continue to expand forever, then do you think it is probable that given enough time, brains would evolve to the point of exceeding mere physical limitations and become free of the physical and temporal, and thereby become "deity" and not be restricted by space and time?  If not, why not? 

I don't think brains will become free of physical needs and it seems impossible for a temporal construct like a brain to ever escape time or space. Perhaps we might develop technology that moves the brain beyond mere brain matter in our skulls, but it will still need a physical grounding. The concept of having a immaterial brain that is outside space and time is not even a coherant concept.
Also evolution has been working on brains on this planet for hundreds of millions of years and in millions of different paths, and so far none of them show any sign of trancendance or even probable trancendance. To meet the goal you propose the very nature of the universe would have to change.

31. If you answered the previous question in the affirmative, then aren't you saying that it is probable that some sort of God exists?
Not applicable. But for the sake of argument you don't have to meet the ridiculous parameters described in Q.20 to be considered godlike.
We may be able to create life one day. We can already manipulate genes and even change atomic states artifically. One day we might birth stars, or even find ways to cross time. (in an extremely unrealistically optimistic long term view of the future).
Perhaps we could even create a universe of our own, as it may take very little to do so, if the universe cannot abide a vacuum. Being a god might take a lot of knowledge but little actual magical power.
Finally since you use "some sort of God" you are forgetting the definition you hold of God and should turn it to a lowercase god because you cannot evolve an uncreated (eternally existant) being.

So that is it, all the questions answered, or at least attempts to answer them. Some questions were fairly transparent in their attempt to shake an atheist viewpoint, however since they address skewed versions of atheist viewpoints they fail to achieve their intended goals.