Here’s a shortcut to test arguments’ formal validity without drawing truth tables, just by showing if an argument’s conclusion can be false while its premises are true. Let’s see how to do this with the following argument: “If molecules-to-man evolution is true, then we can observe it directly or see its effects. We cannot observe it directly. But we can see its effects. Therefore, evolution is true.”
A textbook argument against creation is that nature includes “bad designs” which point to evolution rather than a Creator. For example, food and air both pass through the pharynx, which can lead to choking, and a small blind spot exists in the human eye. Let’s apply some critical thinking checks ...
Let’s see how to think about arguments that say moral values evolved naturally, and require no lawgiver, God. Questions to ask include, “What are the foundations of moral standards, who define what counts as ‘good,’ and why should we act according to those definitions?”
And old argument that God can’t be the source of objective morality goes like this: “If God commands certain actions because they’re moral, then objective morality exists outside of God. But if actions are moral because God commanded them, then morality is not objective, but arbitrary.” Let’s thi...
