The Way Matt Sees It

We’re looking at several philosophical arguments for God’s existence.  First we looked at the Cosmological Argument, showing that God is the best explanation for the cause of the universe.  Next we will look at the Moral Argument: God is the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values and duties. Remember what we said about argumentation: a “good” argument is a series of statements, or premises, that lead to a conclusion.   These premises must be logically sound (the conclusion follows the premises by the rules of logic), and its premises are true.   Along with this, it must be shown that there is good reason to believe that what this argument is stating is true. DEFINE THE TERMS First we need to define what we mean by “objective moral values and duties.” Objective as opposed to Subjective .   Objective means that they exist independent of opinions, belief systems, etc.   Subjective means they are dependent on these things. Values = Good and Ba

The Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham debate motivated me to write a series of blogs on philosophical arguments for God's existence.  Here's the first one: LET'S ARGUE Arguments aren’t just a shouting match between two people who disagree.   Sometimes the connotation of the word “argument” can make people think that’s what argumentation is.   However, when we talk about “arguments” for God’s existence, we mean something else entirely. A “good” argument is a series of statements, or premises, that lead to a conclusion.   These premises must be logically sound (the conclusion follows the premises by the rules of logic), and its premises are true.   Along with this, it must be shown that there is good reason to believe that what this argument is stating is true. PROVE IT These arguments we’re going to look at are not “undeniable proof” of God’s existence.   Rather, we ask the question: is the reason being stated more plausibly true than plausibly false ? THE COSMO

A FALSE DICHOTOMY What if Evolution and Creation weren’t enemies?   What if both were true?     If you watched the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham debate, you probably were under the impression that this statement simply can’t be correct.   In fact, my biggest “gripe” with the debate was this picture painted by both sides.   The entire debate seemed to indicate that being a Christian was synonymous with believing in Young Earth Creationism.   Ken Ham especially emphasized this point: that trusting in the reliability of the Bible must mean ascribing to Young Earth Creationism. However, this is simply not the case.   My hope is that no one walked away feeling like they couldn’t believe in the claims of the Bible because they don’t agree with Young Earth Creationism.   I personally agreed more with what Bill Nye had to say! My favorite Bill Nye moment: If the Flood happened only 4,000 years ago, and there were only 7,000 species on the Ark, and being that there are conservatively