THEOLOGICAL DEBATE.

Oxford Observer, Volume 4, Issue 176, 24 December 1892, Page 3

THEOLOGICAL DEBATE.

The following is a brief abstract of the Debate held at the Town Hall . . East Oxford, on Thursday, 9fch. -~_ (Continued from last week.) 6. A simple form of metaphysical argument may be briefly put as foi-. lows : — All existence are of two kinds and contingent. By a ne--cessary existence is meant One which never began to be, and can never cease to: be. By a contingent exist- • ence is meant one which commenced cease to be. My existence is contingent becau-fe I began to be. The existence of my predecessors must have been, contingent for they have ceased to be, so far as the material world is concerned. All ex- . istences are not contingent or there would have been no existence. We must either believe that existence was first self-originated, which implies a being acting before it existed, or we~ must believe m spontaneous generation which is now condemned by all the leading scientists of the age, or f we must believe tbat there is a necessary, self- existent, independent Being whom we term God. £■■ 7. There is an argument of Consciousness which may be stated as follows :-— I know that I exist. I am . conscious that I was brought into existence by an adequate cause, by which is meant the wisdom necessary to contrive and the power necessary to create such a being as myself. If a cause can produce one such astounding effect as an organic existence, then others can be produced A Being who creates human beings can create worlds. There is no other being competent for this task but God. Another statement of it is, Consciousness is the fundamental foundation of all knowledge. By it we get a knowledge of-self as existing, and as the subject • \of certain attributes. The souls and -•^li-tbeir-t-.fcributes must be accounted j for. They have not existed from eternity. They could not have been : evolved out of material elements, foi* consciousness testifies to their unity, simplicity ancl spirituality. The laws of reason aud the moral sense cannot ba explained as the result of transformed sense impressions modified by association derived by heredity for, (1) thoy are universally the same, (2) incapable of analysis, (3) necessary, (•Jr) and sovereign over all impulses. Therefore the soul must have been created, and its Creator must have attributes superior to his work.. . 8 tiik moral A_tGU-n_NT, or tbe testimony of conscience. This argument has been presented m various \vays. phraseology may vary, and real arguments be the same. I . am conscious of feeling moral obligation to do right and avoid wrong. lam con- i scious of moral conditions for which I feel blameworthy or. praiseworthy, i All this implies a possession of a moral ; nature. A moral nature implies a | or standard of moral action. I ■^PS!c-ivecn.y the mind. Perception of | law, possession of moral character! ' > j apprehension cf moral arrangements, imply a Lawgiver, judge; and Creator. My next argument I call the Biological one. Life exists. It did not always exist. It could not have come •_H.ni dead matter. Tlie source of life could not be less than life. Life could have come from an eternally living being, and that being I call God. I have now given nine arguments m proof o. the existence of a God. I dont intend to let Mr Nelson reply to something I have .not said, and so I have read out these arguments that there may be no mistake about them. Let my opponent re>/ member that every truth must be examined and weighed by its own ap-; | propriato evidence. Mathematical truth must be proved and tested by mathematical moral truth by moral evidence, Historical truth by historical ■ evidence. The existence of God is a moral truth and must be tested by moral evidence. I have submitted s«ch evidence to-night and I expect my opponent to reply to it., Mr Nelson :— Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen :— I have listened with considerable attention- arid aot a little .amuserQent.jiQ ; tli@,^speech

just delivered by my reverend opponent Before I sit down I hope to be able to refute and expose its sophistrys. Mr Hosking defines- God as a selfexistent infinitely perfect spirit. Now that looks very pretty until we come to ask the question what is spirit ? To me the term spirit is as great a mystery as the term God. For Mr Hosking to use one term which he does not understand m order to explain another term which he k _ows nothing about is not a very successful way of making things clear. What is spirit ? And where does it exist ? It either exists somewhere or newhere. If it exists somewhere it must extend m space somewhere, if it extends m space it must have the property, of extension, and if it possesses thevpropeaty of extension, it is only another name for matter, for extension is ' a universal material property. It may be said that spirit does not exist anywhere. Then it must be nothing, it being a fairly well established fact that nothing does not occupy much room. In short spirit is another name for nothing, and nothing is the proper name for God. Mr Hosking quoting Plato the grand old pagan philosopher, tells us that we get our idyas from the .mind of God. Nothing could be more nonsensical. We get our ideas not from God but from our experience. A person without experience would be without ideas. Suppose for example, a person without eyes, without ears, with no sense of touch, taste or smell. The mind of such a person would be an absolute blank. What does that prove ? Clearly that the ideas of the mind are gathered from experience and experience alone. It may be said that we can form ideas which have no _ corresponding reality m; nature. - For example a man may think of a'; golden house although he never saw one. True, but he has seen gold and he has seen houses, and he welds togethei those two .elementary ideas and thusfbrms the idea m question. Had he never seen gold or houses, the idea of a golden house would have been an impossibility. In a similar way man forms, tho conception of an all good, all loving, all powerful God. From human experience he gathers the idea of goodness and love ; from his experience of nature he gathers the conception of power by uniting those conceptions together and mng--nifying them m his imagination, he creates a being called God. and then falls down and worships the creature of his own imagination. In short, every God is made by man and as Ingersoll has said every one is a bad • J ob - -■ Mr Hosking quotes the Bible text which says the fool hath said m his heart there is no God. Let me say that I do , nqt deny the existence of God. Indeed" 1/ am of* opinio]! that there is only one man who is a greater fool than the man who says there is no God, and;that ; is ; the, man who says there is. I only know of nature ; I know of nothing beyond it. With regard to the alleged beyond Mr Hosking and I a~e, equally ignorant. I do not know and he does not know. But I know that Ido not know, and he does not; know that he -does not know. lam ignorant on that subject and he is also equally ignorant. My opponent quotes from the Schoolmen, and ventures to them .a¥ J jgfeajf tlimjst^|]^t';]mej^yj • that those men. -have-not. contributed' one truth" 't^the irite.lec.iifi-- world. They thought that they.could discover the truths of nature by shutting themselves up in' an empty roorn-^ thinking/ and thinking, .andithinking,- m .short, spinning* t- .iiltapliysi-af* * Nothing ppuld be- more nonsensical. The facts of nature are riot discovered by simply thinking about them, if youi want to know the truths of nature you must go and look at them. Mr arguments r from rescajtes anj| .-ASanr Clarkj. professing to pro ve. that,' thgre. must. be. a .neces---, sary existence and that, that existence is God. Now, 1 1 am' willing to ■ admit that there is what may be called a necessary existence, but I submit that that necessary existence is nature. Nature exists. Now there are. only three positions possible with regard to it&ajyegedioirigpn^iWe hiayi^-yJna^

ture created itself ; we may say that it was created by an external agency ; or, we may say that. it is self-existent, that it has existed from an unbegining eternity. It could not have created itself, because that which does not exist cannot act. Nor is anything gained by supposing that it was created by an external agency called God, for the question at once arises whence the_ external agency ? Should it be replied that the external agency always existed the rejoinder is, nature I may bave alway. existed, and if so your creator is unnecessary. Indeed the only reasonable alternative is that nature is the one eternal and necessary existence and that she possesses within her own mighty bosom the potentiality of all phenomena. I shall now deal with what is known as Fosters argument. We are told that a person has no right to deny the existence of God unless he has explored the whole universe. No doubt, but neither, has a person the right to affirm the existence of God unless he has explored the whole universe. Has , Mr Hosking ever visited everywhere and if so, when, did he return ? But if he has not been everywhere then . according to his own showing, he has no right to affirm the existence of God, for. the parts of the universe unvisited by him may contain clear evidence against the existence of such a being. Mr Hosking talks what I am obliged to describe as solemn .non- . sense, about- two kinds' of existences, necessary and contingent. .I. submit that there is but one existence with modes and attributes. Modes and at- , tributes are temporary, existence is eternal. For example, the glass I hold m my hand arid which contains water possesses what may be called holding^ capacity. But holding capacity is not an existence but the attributes of a mode of existence. Suppose I break the glass m pieces. The holding capacity will exist no , longer, but the substance will exist m -^precisely the same quantity as before. Suppose I burn this piece of paper. j The mode paper will be destroyed but the ultimate atoms will exist m the r same quantity as before, but m another form. To talk of two kinds of existence betrays a gross ignorance of modern psychology and modern philosophy. ' What Mr Hosking calls the argu ment from consciousness is an amazing piece of logic. I exist, he practi- , colly says. I did not create myself, therefore God must have created me. Now if Mr Hosking can use that argument so can God. God could say : I exist, I did not make myself. Therefore some greater being made rae. God number two could argue m the same way and conclusively demonstrate the existence of God number three, and so on without limit. In a word Mi* Hosking has not only proved the existecne of God, he has proved the existence of millions of them. . Mr Hosking infers from man's moral nature the existence of a moral governor of the universe. Nonsense 1 He might with equal logic infer from the existence of irian's immoral nature ai immoral governor. of the universe. •The truth is that man's moral nature -Urns nothing to do with God at all. ...•_• Morality is born of human experience. Experience proves that certain actions promote human happiness, and that certain other actions promote ~ human ' misery. And let me here say that m : my opinion it. is wiser, grander, and nobler .to devote pur lives . ,tp performing 'oiir real, duties.. to s thV real men and women by whom we are surrounded, than to waste our lives perforating imaginary d^ im- . aginary God. God to'm. is a word rafcliou _ meaning. „ I regard nature -as infinite and there; is no room for God. What is nature ? I am a part of nature. You are a. ■ part of nature. Tfiis planet is a part of. nature. 'The scjlar system is a part of nature. In sport nature is everything and God is all that remains over. x.What has God done for man ? I answer nothing. God made the barren desert. Man built the smiling village and the busy town: God sends the lightning — man erects the lightning conductor. God sends the storm -ftn^ ; the- hvi rricaoQ^jaan jaang

the lifeboat and risks Iris life to save his brothers. God made us. Naked—man invented trousers, Mr Nelson then recited a piece £ of poetiiy. ■; -s. - Mr Hosking: — Mr Nelson has given * you poetry I could give jou poetry all night if I liked. But we did not come here to recite poetry , we come here to discuss tbe existence of God. Mr Nelson says that I am ignorant of logic and philosophy, but assertion proves nothing. I set down all that kind of talk as rot. I have passed three examinations m logic m a University, aid I canno only detect a fallacy but I can give you its name. My opponent says that he does not deny the existence of God. But he must' tieny* the existence of God if. be is a_L _-EaeTst?~ The word atheist comes from the Greek and means without God — that is one who denies God. Mr Nelson not only/ denies God but he ridicules God or trys ; to doit, but ridicule proves nothing.;, I have given nine .arguments to prove * the existence of God but Mr Nelson, , has not touched one of them. He,gives us a long rigmarole about spirit ! being somewhere or nowhere. Has ... Mr Nelson never heard about thought.-.* Where does thought exist? you canti see it and yet it is there for -all that and the same may be said of spirit. If I had given another name to define spirit he would hava asked me to define that too I say ag£_n God is a spirit and we should worship him m spirit and m truth, Mr Nelsons tells me he dpnt know, and that I dont know. How does he know that I dont know? I might go on all night talking, about knowing and not knowing and all the rest of it. But I I would prove nothing but my own ignorance. Mr Nelson says that if we . want to know the truths of nature" we must go and look at them. Well! Mr Nelsons brain is a truth of nature is'nt it ? Did he ever see it ? Let him put it out and show it. Mr Nelson tells us that God cannat be self existPTlfi ifliafrhnrfnlln nn that mtureisjfolf existent. »o that he believes m "self " existence after all, I will tell you a story. A young lady once asked a young man, which was first, the hen or the egg? The young man said, Oh? the egg to be sure. But where did the egg come from? said the young lady; Oh said the young man, No it was'nt the egg, it was the hen that was first, then, where did the hen come from asked the young lady. Oh! go and ask the hen was the youngmans reply. Now that was a- nice way of getting out of the argument. Now I put the question to Mr Nelson which was the first the hen or the egg? My arguments have never been replied top and I call upon my oppoggnt to meet them like a man and refutemem* if he can. Mr Nelson, — Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen. When . Mr Hosking describes my argument as rot, I confess he has the advantage of me. My principles do not permit me to descend to such vulgarity. Mr Hosking says that a person who is without God must deny. God. Absurd. A person may be without a thing without denying that thing. For example I am, without a fortune but I do not deny the' existence of fortunes. Again I say the atheist does not deny God^a- c_r_p]y_ r affirms that he knows nothing about .^ hitn, and that! other people on the same * subject possesses the same amount oi information. ; Mr Hosking accuses ,me. of ridiculirig God. . I have done notji .f . ing of the knid. I haye simply ,ridi-^ culed the absurd ideas and notions in- . vented by priests and labelled with the, name of Gpd. If God exists at all I persume he can get along without either Mr Hosking or I, and I beleive' the best way to serve him is to dp justicein this world unio pur iellqw men. Mi* Hosking said my argument with regard to spirit woul^egaally apply to thought. But that is noßM^— No pchycplogist regards thought ,-RPB substance or an entity. You ea^M think of a square yard of thought/ oSjof a pound of sentiment. ThoughtZih' — short is an attribute of a parti^aj.. mode of existence the productj^rnervous organisation, for exajfiple. I think, by virtue of my o"-ganisation an 4 when that organisation mixes with the" eternal elements, my present thoughts and sentiments will no long qM^ have any existe-tcef '

Mr Hosking asked me to produce my brain, and hints that! have no right to believe m its existenc because I have never seen it. Well Sir, I will not return the compliment and ask Mr Hosking to produce his brains for I begin to suspect that the person who can use such a foolish argument has'nt got any. True, I have not seen my own brains but I have seen other brains, therefore I know that brains exist. Now if Mr Hosking can produce as much evidence to prove the existence of God, as we can produce to prove the existence of brains. T will believe m the one as readily as -" the other. Let him produce one God; even a tiny little one, and I will f behevein the existence of all the other ~' Tjoasnlg^and little alike. Mr Hosking: — Mr Chairman, Mr v Nelson, Ladies and Gentlemen; Mr Nelson took good care not to mention that hen and that egg, I notice that infidels generally evade the arguments they cannot reply to. I have something more to te 1 you about the hen and the egg. On one occassion a little . boy was asked whether the hen or the egg was first and he said the egg, when they asked where the hen came from, he said: "the hen J why from the fowl house of course." Now thats just what the atheists say. They say that life comes from that which has no life from dead matter. But I say that all life comes from God. Mr Nelson says that there is only one existence. Well, how does he make that out ? I am an existence am I not ? My existence is seperate from yours. We are all seperate existences, that we are responsib'e for our actions Mr Nelson misrepresented my argument entirely, on the question of a moral governor I did not say that mans moral nature proved a moral governor of the universe, and it was dishonest to say that 1 1 did. I read you what I said, I have every word here. I am conciou- of a feeling of moral obligation to do right and avoid wrong. I am jjip-cious of moral conditions for ■ "which I feerbTamewl-_ffl^^ worthy. All this itr plys the posse .sion of a moral nature. A moral nature implies a standard of moral action perceived by the mind. Perception of law possession of moral character, apprehension of moral arrangements imply a law giver, judge and creator. " That being I call God. Now that is a different argument altogether to the one Mr Nelson wants me to produce God, well as I said before Gods existenc is amoral truth and can only be dealt with by a moral truth. Another freethought lecturer Isaac Sellry debated with me on the subject we are discussing to night. He said he could not find -__GpJJbjiii a fortnight after he went to Sydney and was converted to Christianity. Some time ago he cr-me to Cbristchurch to try arid undo some of the wrong he had done there.- 1 sincerely hope that Mr N.ls^n will y.fc follow m the same direction. Christianity lifts men up, Jesus and Jesus only purifies the heart and strengthens the character. Mr Nelson talks about serving man but we can serve both Gol and man too, ancl if we servo both God and man m sincerity and truth then at last when this earthly life is over we shall enter m to the enternal kindom of este-jjpdi : Mr Nelson.-— Mr Chairman Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr Hosking accuses me of evading the hen and the egg argtin_«nt. Well! I regard it a3 so silly . that it docs not merit serious reputation (laughter and. internption). .But in 'spite of that I shall refute it and expose it. First of all to ask whether tbe hen or the egg was first is like asking when a child ceases to be a child and becomes a man childhood slowly merges into manhood and at no point of human existence can say, here the child ends and the man begins suppose that a child just born has itemflbto taken evey day until it becomes man of seventy. You look at the *»hotos one by one beginning with tlc*rst day. Between no two or three or \four days would you perceive the „ slightest difference, and yet as you pass froni ff->oto to photo you would find tliat instead. oK looking upon the face of a child you -*_uld be lookiug on the face of an old man of seventy. . Biology and Geology alike prove that m the course of millions o f years, by a process still more ""gradual, the largest_fon-_s of life m

eluding tho hen, have evolved. from the lowest. But tlie lowest life forms do not propogato by means of eggs. They propog.ite by simple division. The A molied for example at a c?rtaiu stage of it-J evolution divided into two parts, each part setting up life on its own account as a seperate living thing. Ad a matter of fact therefore there never was a first he" or a first egg — the hen, with its egg laying capacity, liaving been evolved from formsof life that lo not propogato hy eggs, I havo thus completely an? wired the foolish question (laughter and cries of no, no,) You may laugh but th- answer I have given you is the answer furnished by Charles Darwin the greatest biologist the world ha 3 even produced ; and your laughter only proves either that you have never studied him or that you have not brains enough to understand it. Mr Hoskings t ilks of the moral government manifested m earthquakes which destroy indiscriminately the good and the wicked, the base and the noble. Is God's goodness manifisted m disease, . pain and death, is God all good ? Then he would desire to destroy all evil. Is God all powerful? Then he is capable of preventing all evil ; but evil exists, ami its existence is an eternal protest against beloif m a God who is at once all good and all powerful. Once more I ask you to cease wasting your energies serving a God who does not need your service and to consencrate yonr lives to the service of humanity, to making life glader, freer, and giander for the children of men.