by John Henson
Brother Thomas B. Warren did what his opponent could not do, and he did much more.
Warren’s opponent, Dr. Antony Flew, gave no affirmative arguments in support of his negative proposition, “I know God does not exist.” Warren said Flew’s affirmative arguments sounded more like a negative one.
The world-renowned philosopher joked about “fairy stories,” rather than present any concrete evidence showing God does not exist.
Warren’s able presentation of his affirmative arguments was more than a polemic triumph. It was a belief-examining, heart-exposing and life-changing elucidation of the truth. Warren’s was not sophistic argument; instead it was a sophisticated demonstration of the existence of God.
Warren showed from evidence, evolution could not be true by proving that any object is either human or non-human, and that the human being constitutes proof that God does exist.
Using a simple three-statement syllogism, Warren posited an argument for the existence of God, that Flew could not challenge.
Warren’s second affirmative proved God designed the human being, and all life on this planet was created by the ultimate designer, God almighty. Using the design of the alveoli, or air sacs of the lungs in humans, Warren convincingly demonstrated and reasoned that design implies a designer and God is that designer.
In his third affirmative, Warren said there must be an objective standard, or a higher law, other than any particular moral code, which can be recognized. In another three-line syllogism, Warren’s argument said:
1. If the moral code and/or actions of any individual or society can properly be subjects of criticism (as to real, moral wrong), then there must be some objective standard (and some higher law, which transcends the provincial or transient) which is other than the particular moral code and which has an obligatory character which can be recognized.
2. The moral code and/or actions of an individual or society can be properly subjects of criticism (as to real moral wrong).
3. Therefore, there must be some objective standard (some higher law) which transcends the provincial or transient, which is other than the particular moral code and which has an obligatory character which can be recognized.
Warren had been working on this affirmative argument long before presenting it. He had offered questions to Flew, one of which was, “Is there such a thing as real moral wrong.”
Of course, Flew could not answer the question because if he did, he would automatically concede Warren’s third affirmative argument. In so asking the question, Warren was not baiting Flew, but simply showed the contradictory and existentialist character of atheism and agnosticism.
Without having solid evidence to base a denial of the existence of God, atheists and agnostics consider the defense of their philosophy as a “leap into the dark.” Since such a leap must admit the impossibility of an objective standard of right and wrong, the atheist and agnostic find themselves in a losing battle if it is proven that man has always understood an objective standard exists.
This is exactly what Warren proved in his third affirmative. Warren showed the Nazis were not tried at Nuremburg by the laws of the U.S., Great Britain or Germany, but that a higher law, an objective standard existed whereby the prosecutors could prefer and prove charges of war crimes against the Nazis.
Flew found himself on the horns of a dilemma. Since he had already failed to recognize an objective standard of law, and since his philosophy implies a leap into the dark, Flew was shown as a man whose thinking was unreasonable and self-contradictory. According to Flew, the Nazis were justified in killing six million Jews and there was no basis for a prosecution against them for those murders.
May God be true and every man a liar (Romans 3:4). Warren’s third affirmative simply allowed the truth to be shown as evident.
by John Henson