CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:49
Arguments:51
Total Votes:52
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Devil's Advocate: Round 2 (47)

Debate Creator

ChuckHades(3197) pic



Devil's Advocate: Round 2

OK, so some of you may remember that a while back I made a debate where, for one debate, I would be a Christian apologetic, I think under the name "ChristSatan" or something. Recently, we've had an influx of new atheists and debates, so I thought I'd start another one up. 

I am now going to defend Christianity. Give me your best arguments against it, and I'll see what I can do. I will also post my arguments for Christianity in the arguments page below, in a format that some of you may recognize.

This might be a chance for the newer guys to test their mettle, so it should be good.

Add New Argument

1. The cosmological argument. Recent science has shown us that the universe is likely to have began to exist. All that begins to exist has a cause. So we can deduce that the universe likely had a cause. Seeing as the universe probably came from the Big Bang, which brought our space and time into existence, the cause would have to be immaterial and timeless. It would also have to be powerful. And personal, as it must be spaceless and timeless. The only cause we know of that could meet those criteria is God.

2. The teleological argument. The universe is fine tuned in such a way that if you were to change one number, life would be impossible. This either happened by physical necessity, chance, or design. Physical necessity doesn't works, as the various constants of the universe are independent of the laws of nature. The odds of it happening by chance are incomprehensibly long, and cannot be taken seriously. Leaving only design as an option.

3. Objective morality. There exists an objective morality . Evolution does not explain why we have moral values. The only explanation is that there exists a greater being that judges what is wrong and right. That very well could be God.

4. The resurrection of Jesus. Most historians now agree that there is evidence that the resurrection took place. This would mean we had a miracle. Jesus was a messiah claimant. The only explanation is that God raised Jesus from the dead.

5. Personal experience. Those which have experienced God have no need to justify his existence.

TheAshman(2299) Disputed
1 point

As we are playing Devils Advocate I have one thing to say which I have seen a lot of Atheist's falling back on, prove it!!

Serstlou(52) Disputed
1 point

1. The cosmological argument. Recent science has shown us that the universe is likely to have began to exist. All that begins to exist has a cause. So we can deduce that the universe likely had a cause. Seeing as the universe probably came from the Big Bang, which brought our space and time into existence, the cause would have to be immaterial and timeless. It would also have to be powerful. And personal, as it must be spaceless and timeless. The only cause we know of that could meet those criteria is God.

This is only set as a theory, and hasn't been entirely accepted by the rest of the scientific community. Many quantum physicists have many, many different views on the subject, some believing that the universe is classified as a biological organism capable of reproduction. A more specific argument against the theory in question is that since we are part of a much larger system, we can't properly observe it as a whole, or even begin to understand it.

2. The teleological argument. The universe is fine tuned in such a way that if you were to change one number, life would be impossible. This either happened by physical necessity, chance, or design. Physical necessity doesn't work, as the various constants of the universe are independent of the laws of nature. The odds of it happening by chance are incomprehensibly long, and cannot be taken seriously. Leaving only design as an option.

Saying that it's improbable is something entirely different than confirming it as impossible. It still could have turned out that way to lead us here, and it's still possible that life could have taken another shape or form if the universe or laws of physics were changed.

3. Objective morality. There exists an objective morality . Evolution does not explain why we have moral values. The only explanation is that there exists a greater being that judges what is wrong and right. That very well could be God.

If you're using an element of human behaviour as an argument, the rest of it should be used as well. Morals can be drastically different in different societies, and have changed over time in equally drastic ways. This shows us that there really is no universal set of morals, especially in a practical sense. And, if God were able to determine something such as our morals, wouldn't he be making a lot of changes to optimize the model of the earth and get us to cooperate?

4. The resurrection of Jesus. Most historians now agree that there is evidence that the resurrection took place. This would mean we had a miracle. Jesus was a messiah claimant. The only explanation is that God raised Jesus from the dead.

It could be verified that certain people attended, and that some event did take place, sure, but is there a video recording that shows him ascending? What suggests that a miracle occurred at all, rather than one person imagining something and pulling everybody along with them? There is far too little information to verify all of these, and not much to exclude certain variables when all we have are ancient documents or letters. If human society crumbles, and some alien finds an ancient copy of the Twilight book series, I really hope he doesn't take it as evidence that we were a race of sparkly vampires.

5. Personal experience. Those which have experienced God have no need to justify his existence.

In terms of personal belief, this is acceptable. But if it's solid evidence to prove the existence of God that you're shooting for, this is a useless statement. You have to completely eliminate several strong variables to completely validate it. What suggests that a portion of these people aren't batshit crazy? I know someone who's schizophrenic father would go out into his yard, naked, and start masturbating to God. If even one person's mind can be warped like that, you need to verify that every single one of these witnesses is entirely sane, and 100% unimaginative.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for posting this, by the way. Quite an interesting argument, and it's nice to see someone who's focused on what the site should be about, rather than a lot of the squabbling going on. And quite a challenge, even. =P

ChuckHades(3197) Disputed
1 point

This is only set as a theory, and hasn't been entirely accepted by the rest of the scientific community.

The vast, VAST majority of the scientific community accepts the Big Bang theory as true.

Many quantum physicists have many, many different views on the subject,

From my experience, most quantum physicists also accept the Big Bang theory, they propose a different start to it though.

some believing that the universe is classified as a biological organism capable of reproduction.

This is currently pseudo science, and is no more compelling than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

A more specific argument against the theory in question is that since we are part of a much larger system, we can't properly observe it as a whole, or even begin to understand it.

But we can apply the basic laws of logic to it. Via inductive reasoning, we can conclude that the universe required a cause.

Saying that it's improbable is something entirely different than confirming it as impossible. It still could have turned out that way to lead us here, and it's still possible that life could have taken another shape or form if the universe or laws of physics were changed.

But then that becomes wing and a prayer style thinking. If something is horribly improbable, it should not be considered the superior theory.

Morals can be drastically different in different societies, and have changed over time in equally drastic ways.

Yes, but this does not disprove objective morality.

This shows us that there really is no universal set of morals, especially in a practical sense.

No it doesn't. Actions have consequences, and thus judgments must be made. The consequence is objective, thus the action is objective. For example, the consequence of pregnancy is objective, thus the action of intercourse is objective. The same applies to morality. If the consequence of negative well being is objective, then the action of immorality must be objective.

1 point

Ah, Chuck... This devil's advocate thing is slowly burgeoning in CD! I don't have too much time here, so I'll just do a brief run down of why I disagree with each of these arguments.

The cosmological argument

Seeing as the universe probably came from the Big Bang, which brought our space and time into existence, the cause would have to be immaterial and timeless.

I'm no scientist, so I cannot comment on the science of it. Rather, I'll use an unorthodox approach by challenging the argument using philosophy and logic. OK. When we ask what is the cause of something, we are asking the agency which produced the effect in question. Thus, "causes" are spatially and temporally contingent. To say that there is a cause that is independent of space and time would be to ask an incoherent question. It would be the same as asking, "Which point on Earth is north of the North Pole?"

Teleological Argument

The odds of it happening by chance are incomprehensibly long, and cannot be taken seriously.

Really? This commits the lottery fallacy. For example, if I were to buy a lottery ticket and I win and, say, 2 billion others did not, would that mean that someone rigged or designed the lottery in my favor? After all, the chances (1 in 2 billion and one) were also extremely, incomprehensibly long!

Objective morality

Is there actually objective morality? In philosophy, the term "objective" refers to "mind independence". My argument is that even if there is objective morality, it is, by definition, unknowable because we can't know anything if that object or idea is independent of our mind's thoughts and conceptions. Hell, since God is an unembodied mind, if he exists, even he can't know objective morality.

The resurrection of Jesus

This is the most stupid argument ever proposed. The underlying premise of the argument is that Jesus was supposedly of messianic descent. To argue that evidence of a resurrection (of which there is, arguably, none) somehow affirm's his messianic claim would be to commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Personal experience

This is highly dubious. If someone claims to be insane, isn't it reasonable to question if he/she actually is insane or inflicted by some sort of mental disability? And when asked such a question, even if mental disabilities are personal experiences, don't there need to be some sort of proof of mental disability? To mount such an argument would be to say that mental disabilities exist because some people claim to be experiencing it. Furthermore, claims of personal experiences of God have always been culturally specific. For example, have you ever heard of any Christian who has repeatedly claimed that Thor, Isis, Allah or Zeus exist simultaneously?

ChuckHades(3197) Disputed
1 point

Ah, Chuck... This devil's advocate thing is slowly burgeoning in CD!

Eh, I know I only did this half a year ago (ish), but with all the new users, I thought I'd seize the opportunity. Besides, it's only the second debate of its kind, it's not too common spread, I hope.

I'm no scientist, so I cannot comment on the science of it

Well, I'm no philosopher, but I'll have a go anyway. Chances are what I'll say will make no sense at all, but worth a try.

Rather, I'll use an unorthodox approach by challenging the argument using philosophy and logic. OK. When we ask what is the cause of something, we are asking the agency which produced the effect in question. Thus, "causes" are spatially and temporally contingent. To say that there is a cause that is independent of space and time would be to ask an incoherent question. It would be the same as asking, "Which point on Earth is north of the North Pole?"

In normal cases, I would agree with your argument. But if the agent in question is one that produced the effect of space and time, wouldn't it be misplaced to apply the rules of contingency to this agent? If it were not possible for anything to exist spatially and temporally, how could one demand that the cause be spatially and temporally contingent?

Really? This commits the lottery fallacy. For example, if I were to buy a lottery ticket and I win and, say, 2 billion others did not, would that mean that someone rigged or designed the lottery in my favor? After all, the chances (1 in 2 billion and one) were also extremely, incomprehensibly long!

But the odds we're discussing are far longer than that of the lottery. We're discussing odds of numbers so long, there aren't enough atoms in the universe to write it down.

Is there actually objective morality? In philosophy, the term "objective" refers to "mind independence". My argument is that even if there is objective morality, it is, by definition, unknowable because we can't know anything if that object or idea is independent of our mind's thoughts and conceptions. Hell, since God is an unembodied mind, if he exists, even he can't know objective morality.

But is that definition not subjective? In that it is unknowable to our minds, but the definition is not applicable to other minds. And if God is omniscient, he can know objective morality.

This is the most stupid argument ever proposed.

And yet Billy Craig sees it as the greatest ever proposed ;)

To argue that evidence of a resurrection (of which there is, arguably, none) somehow affirm's his messianic claim would be to commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Then I ask you to provide alternative explanations for the Resurrection.

As for personal experience, those debates never go anywhere, so I concede that point.

It was nice to debate with you again Reventon.

ChadOnSunday(1863) Clarified
1 point

Do I have to dispute one of these five points in order to hear you advocate for the Devil, or are you taking any and all arguments against religion? I posted my beef with original sin...

Sorry, I'll get to it now, I was dealing with other posts first .

Micmacmoc(2260) Disputed
1 point

This happened by ... chance"

I think that it could easily have happened by chance. Yes, the probability of this, exact universe is slim, but so is the probability of another universe coming into existence.

"Evolution does not explain why we have moral values"

Actually, it does. We have evolved to have moral values so that we can protect ourselves more easily.

If I punch you, then there is a chance that you may punch me. Therefore I have the respect to not punch you and to leave you alone. Because of this, you have left me alone, and I am safer than I would have been without my moral values.

Moral values in giving, sharing, are also easily explainable. If I give you something then I would hope that you would do it for me. If I open a door for you, I would hope for you to do the same for me.

So why, you might ask, do we help people who cannot help us? Well, a lot of us don't, to begin with. But those who do, have had morals so firmly set into their mind that they apply to everyone - not just those who can help them. People also do this so that others respect their capacity for being hospitable to those who need it most.

We have evolved to have morals for our personal gain.

"The resurrection of Jesus"

People cannot prove this way or another where Jesus' body went when it left the tomb - but they wouldn't have to once they have accepted that the probability for Jesus' very existence is small.

"Those which have experienced God have no need to justify his existence"

Is that because they cannot prove it to others? Is that because they are going mad? There are all sorts of reasons why they simply have not proven it to others.

ChuckHades(3197) Disputed
1 point

I think that it could easily have happened by chance. Yes, the probability of this, exact universe is slim, but so is the probability of another universe coming into existence.

But that is not provable, and thus we mus work with what we've got: a single universe with conditions that should prohibit life, yet allow it.

Actually, it does. We have evolved to have moral values so that we can protect ourselves more easily.

Evolution only explains why we have the capacity for morality, not morality itself. Evolution can only use objective facts to make subjective conclusions on morality. Thus, evolution is not a foundation for objective morality.

People cannot prove this way or another where Jesus' body went when it left the tomb - but they wouldn't have to once they have accepted that the probability for Jesus' very existence is small.

Why do you believe the probability of his existence is small?

Is that because they cannot prove it to others? Is that because they are going mad? There are all sorts of reasons why they simply have not proven it to others.

Because experiencing God is transcendent, and can't be believed unless experienced. This cannot be empirically supported, but acts as a personal evidence atheists don't have.

I never had to delve much further than Genesis to make a statement that couldn't be solidly refuted by a Christian, so I hope you can. Original sin. God makes imperfect humans and then condemns humanity because two uneducated nudists acted according to the nature god gave them. God did all of this knowing full well how it would play out and uses it to his advantage; god set his standards impossibly high, and when we inevitably fail to reach them we either submit to him or fry for eternity. This argument is against a good, benevolent god.

ChuckHades(3197) Disputed
1 point

But original sin only came through humans using free will to disobey God. If Adam and Eve never ate from the tree, then original sin wouldn't exist. Also, I believe in the redemption through Christ. Original sin is lifted if you just believe in Christ.

Thus there is no issue.

1 point

Do we really have free will? God programmed us, made everything we will ever know and interact with, and controls all the variables. And he knows how everything will play out.

Even if we do have free will, god knew that he was setting us up for an existence of condemnation, and didn't do a damn thing about it. He let it happen when he could have done a whole host of things to stop it. Or he could lower his standards, and be okay with the fact that he created, in his eyes, imperfect human beings.

And you believe that the only path to redemption is through Christ. That's part of the problem. You believe that the only way to atone for the sin of being born is to die in submission and service to the deity that created us imperfect in the first place! God set up a situation in which we either must believe in him to redeem his own opinion of us or we fry forever. This makes him an asshole.

Also why are we not all presented with our own apple scenario? If humans are really, truly capable of obeying god, if its not human nature to always eat the apple, why is all of humanity condemned because of the actions of two ignorant shit-kickers? We're talking billions of people, all people past, current, and future, damned because of the actions of two. Hardly kind on gods part, and hardly fair.

1 point

Well, i'll make this short. Really it only needs to be. If there was a God, even if he did exist, if you look back at what has happened over history, both factually and in the Bible, then you would realize he is not a nice being. And why always Christianity. Of course if you're a Christian then you never consider the fact that other religions think just the same as you do. I can't be bothered to go in to all the wars about it facts. How sick God must be to do all the things he did, and our current situations. I'm sure you are aware of them. A real Christian would admit to faults in their system, but then argue back some decent points that would make me think "Hmm, yes you're right, the things i thought were bad about Christianity are actually good." But, no one has done that, because no one can level out all the bad things wrong with. Q.E.D. Way more than the good things.

ChuckHades(3197) Disputed
1 point

God doesn't kill people, people kill people .

BenWalters(1513) Disputed
1 point

What about deaths due to natural catastrophies? Famines, droughts, tsunamis, just to name a few of the larger ones. If God is all powerful, and God created earth, then God killed people.

1 point

Read your Bible. God killed people. In regards to his body count I've seen estimates in the millions.

1 point

1) The resurrection of Jesus is scientifically impossible because he went brain dead, and there was, because of this, irreversible damage done to him and his body, meaning that none of it was alive, and none of it could come back.

2) Scientifically, the order that the world is created, according to Genesis, is completely wrong.

3) The world is 13.7 billion years old, not a few thousand years old.

4) There is nothing in the Christian Old Testament about where God came from.

5) If God compiled the Bible himself, from all the different books he asked the prophets to write, then why does the Bible so often contradict itself?

6) Why hasn't God introduced himself on the TV or anything?

7) Why is "Let there be light" followed by the creation of the sun? Why are they not together?

8) If the Christian God did exist, then why did he inspire the birth of so many other religions?

9) Who taught God everything he knows?

10) How can God grant prayers without infringing on free will?

11) Why doesn't every prayer come true?

12) If God sent you to hell for not believing then why didn't he show the right path and guide you? Because of this, he is a hypocrite, yet he speaks against such a thing as hypocrites - so he is more of a hypocrite. But it also says God can never be wrong. He obviously can. I have actually done a debate on this.

ChuckHades(3197) Disputed
1 point

The resurrection of Jesus is scientifically impossible because he went brain dead, and there was, because of this, irreversible damage done to him and his body, meaning that none of it was alive, and none of it could come back.

The resurrection of Jesus was a miracle to prove his divinity, what you're saying actually supports my point. If it were scientifically possible, then it wouldn't have been a miracle.

Scientifically, the order that the world is created, according to Genesis, is completely wrong.

As a liberal Christian, I believe most of Genesis is figurative.

The world is 13.7 billion years old, not a few thousand years old.

Show me where in the Bible it says that the world is a few thousand years old.

There is nothing in the Christian Old Testament about where God came from.

God doesn't need an origin, he exists in and of himself: aseity.

If God compiled the Bible himself, from all the different books he asked the prophets to write, then why does the Bible so often contradict itself?

Fallible humans. God didn't directly author the Bible, He asked humans to author His ideas. Unfortunately, humans aren't as infallible as God.

Why hasn't God introduced himself on the TV or anything?

How on Earth does an immaterial, spaceless, timeless being appear on TV?

Why is "Let there be light" followed by the creation of the sun? Why are they not together?

Why wouldn't it be?

If the Christian God did exist, then why did he inspire the birth of so many other religions?

He didn't, humans using free will did.

Who taught God everything he knows?

God doesn't need a teacher, he's omniscient.

How can God grant prayers without infringing on free will?

This is akin to asking "How can my employers pay me without infringing on my free will?" If you ask for it, you are using your free will. Granting somebody's wish does not violate free will, as it took free will to make the prayer.

Why doesn't every prayer come true?

Why would it? The Bible states not to ask for foolish things, as this leads to a less virtuous life, and one without true attainment of the soul.

f God sent you to hell for not believing then why didn't he show the right path and guide you? Because of this, he is a hypocrite, yet he speaks against such a thing as hypocrites - so he is more of a hypocrite. But it also says God can never be wrong. He obviously can. I have actually done a debate on this.

One does not go to Hell for non-belief, they go to hell for sin. One can lead a virtuous, atheistic life and avoid Hell. And, although I risk bringing up old ground here, God cannot be objectively wrong. He can be wrong insofar as our subjective definition allows, but as God, His choice is always the objectively right one.

Micmacmoc(2260) Disputed
1 point

"Genesis is figurative"

So the Bible is therefore incorrect, if Genesis is metaphorical then the Bible cannot, by definition, be correct - which leads to the fact that God doesn't exist.

"God doesn't need an origin"

Why not? If the Bible cannot explain where such a being came from then how can it expect to teach other people about how to live their lives? If God doesn't have an origin then he does not exist.

"Fallible humans. God didn't directly author the Bible, He asked humans to author His ideas. Unfortunately, humans aren't as infallible as God"

So why did God not correct them? If he existed it was surely in his power and to make mistakes is supposed to be something God does not do. So if Go did not correct them is that because he did/does not exist?

"How on Earth does an immaterial, spaceless, timeless being appear on TV?"

Well, God can do anything, if he exists. That is the whole point of being God, isn't it? If God cannot appear on TV then maybe there is a reason for that such as: he does not exist.

"Why wouldn't ["let there be light" followed by the creation of the sun]?"

Because without the sun there is not light. Without the sun there is nothing, apart from an expanse of a cold world of nothing. There has to be a sun or a star for there to be any light at all.

"Humans using free will did [inspire the birth of so many other religions]"

Then why did God not correct them for their mistakes? Why didn't God show the guidance that he should have been showing to guide them into a true religion so that they can live in heaven? As he does not do this, God is a hypocrite - something he should not be for God is allegedly perfect.

"This is akin to asking "How can my employers pay me without infringing on my free will?""

No, it is nothing like that. If I pray that one of my friends will have a good day, but someone else is determined to make them have a bad day, then surely my prayer would somehow prevent their free will so that they do not cause my friend to have a bad day.

"The Bible states not to ask for foolish things"

Yet, if I pray for a family member of mine to live a while longer, and they do not, then why has God ignored me? Caring for those I love is not something that is foolish. Jesus taught people to love and care for others, yet God doesn't really seem to care about this at all, does he?

"God cannot be objectively wrong"

Sorry about bringing this up again.

I think that God can be morally wrong and in the past I have given examples. But, obviously the Bible contradicts itself too much for there to really be a debate here.

Sounds like fun, so I suppose I'll take a stab at this.

"Recent science has shown us that the universe is likely to have began to exist."

Science also says that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can only change forms. The Big Bang theory doesn't account for the creation of matter and energy. It accounts for the change in matter and energy from a singularity to the universe we see today.

"The only cause we know of that could meet those criteria is God."

Keep in mind that the "only thing we knew of" that could explain earthquakes was God. The "only thing we knew of" that could explain disease was God. The "only thing we knew of" that could explain the peculiar motions of stars and planets in the night sky was God.

It's only "the only thing we know of" because we know so little.

"The odds of it happening by chance are incomprehensibly long, and cannot be taken seriously."

However long the odds are, the notion that an intelligent being just happened to exist in in order to "set the dials", has, at the very least, equally long odds.

On morality:

Empathy for the well-being of others is at the core of morality, and we see signs of this empathy in animals which have evolved to be moderately to highly social as well as moderately to highly intelligent. Various species of apes and monkeys being the obvious examples.

If morals were objective, it seems to me that every living organism would adhere to them. Or, if mankind is the only species morals apply to, then why can we find so many examples of it in the animal kingdom?

It seems to make sense, to me at least, that any intelligent social animal would develop and evolve a sense of morality over time as it is highly beneficial towards the species continued survival. Animals that are more independent in nature have no need for this evolutionary trait. This explains why some animals exhibit moral behavior, and others do not. The higher the intelligence, and more complex the social structure, the more elaborate and ingrained the moral behavior becomes.

"Most historians now agree that there is evidence that the resurrection took place."

There is eye-witness testimony... which is the worst kind of evidence for anything. Especially when it comes to extraordinary claims such as people coming back from the dead. As the internet meme goes: "..pics, or it didn't happen."

Not to mention the fact that these eye-witness accounts were not written down until a significant time had passed from the actual event. There have been tons of extraordinary claims supported by eye-witness testimonials that were more descriptive, and were recorded immediately after (or even during) the supposed events which most people disregard without a second thought.

Just think of all the alien abduction accounts you've heard of; or ghost hauntings; or Bigfoot sightings; or the Loch Ness Monster. All have better documentation than Jesus' resurrection, yet none are accepted as strong, irrefutable evidence by scholars.

Many Christians believe Joseph Smith was a false prophet, and that Mormonism is a joke; and yet, there exists the "Testimony of Three Witnesses," and the "Testimony of Eight Witnesses," which are signed documents of eye-witnesses who claim they saw the golden plates Smith used to write the Book of Mormon, and could verify their existence. Why are their eye-witness testimonials no good, but the Gospels of the Bible are?

"Personal experience. Those which have experienced God have no need to justify his existence."

Fair enough, but if God will not, or cannot interfere with free will, how can we be sure these personal experiences are the work of God?

If God can and does interfere with certain people's free will by directly making His presence known to them, and he desires all people to know of and worship him, why does he not simply give to all people such personal, unmistakable experiences. Why only a small handful of people? Their free will didn't matter? Does God just work in mysterious ways? Or are these people just delusional?

ChuckHades(3197) Disputed
1 point

Science also says that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can only change forms. The Big Bang theory doesn't account for the creation of matter and energy. It accounts for the change in matter and energy from a singularity to the universe we see today.

Does matter possess aseity? Does energy possess aseity? The answer is clearly "no". In which case, the laws of basic causation still apply to matter and energy; this is where God fits the criteria perfectly.

It's only "the only thing we know of" because we know so little.

Fallacious appeal to ignorance.

However long the odds are, the notion that an intelligent being just happened to exist in in order to "set the dials", has, at the very least, equally long odds.

Not really. If you have an experiment, the odds of an intelligent being setting it off are far shorter than the experiment randomly starting by itself.

Empathy for the well-being of others is at the core of morality, and we see signs of this empathy in animals which have evolved to be moderately to highly social as well as moderately to highly intelligent. Various species of apes and monkeys being the obvious examples.

But this does not provide a foundation for objective morals. Evolution can only deduce subjective conclusions from objective facts.

If morals were objective, it seems to me that every living organism would adhere to them. Or, if mankind is the only species morals apply to, then why can we find so many examples of it in the animal kingdom?

Mankind is the only species with God given morality, from a Christian perspective. Of course, it's possible that God allowed more advanced species to evolve their own basic set of values, but nothing as solid as our own morality.

Just think of all the alien abduction accounts you've heard of; or ghost hauntings; or Bigfoot sightings; or the Loch Ness Monster. All have better documentation than Jesus' resurrection, yet none are accepted as strong, irrefutable evidence by scholars.

Just think of Genghis Khan, or Charlemagne, or Gilgamesh. All have worse documentation than Jesus' resurrection, yet all are accepted as historical figures by scholars.

Many Christians believe Joseph Smith was a false prophet, and that Mormonism is a joke; and yet, there exists the "Testimony of Three Witnesses," and the "Testimony of Eight Witnesses," which are signed documents of eye-witnesses who claim they saw the golden plates Smith used to write the Book of Mormon, and could verify their existence. Why are their eye-witness testimonials no good, but the Gospels of the Bible are?

Well, from a Christian view, the gospels are authored by the numinous, Mormon doctrine isn't.

If God can and does interfere with certain people's free will by directly making His presence known to them, and he desires all people to know of and worship him, why does he not simply give to all people such personal, unmistakable experiences. Why only a small handful of people? Their free will didn't matter? Does God just work in mysterious ways? Or are these people just delusional?

God doesn't choose us, we choose Him with our free will. God presents himself as an available offer; some will take it, others won't. But he does not infringe on free will by making an offer.