by Jonathan

According to Greek mythology, when Achilles was born, his mother, Thetis, tried to immortalize him by dipping him into the river Styx. As she immersed him, she held him by one heel and forgot to dip him a second time so that same heel could get wet as well. Therefore, the place where she held him remained untouched by the magic water of the Styx and his heel remained mortal or vulnerable -- hence the term, "Achilles' Heel."

The term is known to be the end-all topic of conversations, the deciding factor which leaves no room for further discussion on the total validity of any matter. When that Heel is found and crushed, the feet lose their strength and the body comes crashing down like timbers, leaving it alive, but ultimately defeated. Numerous topics have undergone the scrutiny of this device. I will use the Achilles Heel of Atheism as a brief example, and then discuss the Achilles Heel of Protestantism concerning its lack of submission to the Catholic Church, which is the focus of my paper.

These two topics, Atheism and Protestantism, have something innately errant within themselves, being of a self-contradictory nature. But understand I am not knocking the overarching validity of Christianity that is present in Protestantism, just the relationship it has to the Catholic Church. While reading this, understand that I have been on both sides of the argument -- now Catholic, but once always very much sure of my Protestantism. This paper most likely will be offending in some sense. I'm not trying to be outright rude, but I need to be clear in what is wrong.

Atheism

Now, on to Atheism. Many people claim that God does not exist. It is an arrogant claim to say the least. Truth-seeking individuals on both sides of the argument have debated for centuries and millennia. Some refuse to accept this truth because they honestly do not see the evidence for a Creator. Others refuse to accept it because they do not want to have a Master above them. Still others simply do not care, which perhaps is the most unfortunate of all.

Scientists and theologians (presuming I can take the artistic license and classify them into two stereotypical groups) have adopted several methods for arguing the existence of a Creator. Some rely on the unlikelihood of evolution because of the enormously high improbability of the process occurring by random chance. It is a good argument, and in fact, a great one if we wish to prove the existence of a Creator. The opposing side, however, attempts to debunk the believers by addressing the problem of evil -- theodicy. How can evil exist in a world created and controlled by God?

There are several flaws with that argument in that atheists' reasons for evil's existence are based on fundamental presuppositions that are ultimately flawed. If they better understood the Biblical approach, perhaps they would not be so quick to present their ideology. But you will not find the Achilles Heel of atheism in evolution (though for all practical purposes it is very close), nor will you be able to prove the Creator does not exist by suggesting the presence of evil and suffering as the counter-argument. The answer lies before the beginning. It lies in what happened before the Big Bang occurred.

Science has never had to contradict the Holy, and now the creation has vindicated the Creator. Simply put, it all lies within the First Law of Thermodynamics. This states, along with common sense, that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. The key line in this is that "energy cannot be created." Hence, we are begged to ask the question where did all of this "stuff" come from? Where did that tiny sub-nucleic particle which exploded to make the Big Bang originate and how did it come to exist? It is scientifically impossible -- energy cannot be created. To put it in layman's terms, something cannot come from nothing.

Creation was step one, the beginning step of creation that atheists gloss over, fruitlessly believing that one day they will find the answers. However, while creation is step one, the scientists insist that we must argue step two (evolution) and then step three (theodicy), while entirely skipping the first step (creation). You cannot skip steps in a process like this in order to validate a proof. It is absurd and insulting to the intelligence of the open-minded. It's that simple. Everything we see, hear, feel, touch, and taste cannot have come from nothing. Hence, a Creator. While I do not have all of the answers to all of the questions, I do believe I have the Answer to the Question. Nature, by its very nature, is supernatural.

Protestantism

Regarding the defense of Protestantism, I know most of the arguments as I have supported most of them. I know the Catholic side as well, and was terribly bitter toward the Church for several years. This bitterness came for a couple reasons. One, I knew I was right and they were wrong. There was just no question. "I mean seriously