(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.

(2) Notice how my opponent simply brings up old skeptical arguments that many have already refuted. He does not interact with the resurrection material itself. He has not shown "contradictions" on this material especially on the relevant parts such as the empty tomb and appearances of Jesus. He simply does not know the historical context this took place. Also, he fails to mention that there is extra-canonical material that spoke of the resurrection, such as the gospel of Peter. Through the historical-critical method (criterion of dissimilarity and multiple attestation) -- which it seems he knows nothing of -- Jesus probably rose from the dead.

(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.

Apolonio
AVBCL111@aol.com