Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 50 results found
This is known as a pseudo-question. It’s like asking, “Can God win an arm wrestling match against Himself?” or, “If God beat Himself up, who would win?” or, “Can God’s power defeat His own power?”
I want to teach you how to assess a basic argument. How can you know if an argument is a good one or not?
There are at least three things wrong with the idea that they don't. The view that science and religion don’t mix is guilty of at least three logical errors. First, it commits the either/or fallacy by asserting that a view is either scientific or religious. Design models have some evidential support. For example, we see the blending of science and religion in the existence of a Creator based on Big Bang cosmology as the beginning of the universe.
Jesus alone, the perfect Son of God, paid the debt so that whoever trusts in Him will not perish under God’s punishment, but have life with Him fully and forever. The story is told of a king who, having discovered a theft in the royal treasury, decrees that the criminal be publicly flogged for this affront to the crown. When soldiers haul the thief before the king as he sits in his judgment seat, there in chains stands the frail form of the king’s own mother.
How do we know when to stick to our guns on an idea and when to change our view? Here’s what I suggest: Hold to your view only as tenaciously as the evidence permits.
Philosopher Friedrich Schleiermacher scoffed at the concept that God gave good creatures the freedom to do bad. If a being is perfect in its goodness, he held, it would never sin even if it were free to.
A certain atheist professor of philosophy had as a primary goal to prove to his students God couldn't exist. At the end of every semester he would say to his class, "Anyone who believes in God is a fool. If God existed, He could stop this piece of chalk from hitting the ground and breaking. Such a simple task to prove that He is God, and yet he can't do it." Then he would drop the chalk and it would shatter into a hundred pieces on the tile floor of the classroom. If you confront anyone who tries this silly trick, here's how to respond.
The statements "One ought not kill innocent people," and "One ought to believe that Kansas is in the United States," are two entirely different kinds of statements. Both make a truth claim, but they are different in that they distinguish between two kinds of "oughts"--the moral ought and the rational ought. The first suggests a moral obligation, the second an obligation based on reason.
Here’s an argument against naturalistic determinism based on the relationship between free will and rationality. Free will makes rationality possible. If there is no free will, then no one is capable of choosing to believe something because of good reasons. One could never adjudicate between a good idea and a bad one. He’d only believe what he does because he’s been predetermined to do so. Arguments wouldn’t matter.
If you encounter someone who thinks he’s a relativist, you can usually prove him wrong in five minutes or less when moral words like “should” creep into his conversation. Don’t him them get away with it. Expose the inconsistency. If morals are relative to the individual, then all “shoulds” are meaningless.