"Rational" Arguments for the Existence of God

 
The current issue of Christianity Today contains an article by William Lane Craig entitled God Is Not Dead Yet: How current philosophers argue for his existence. Craig is a Professor of Philosophy at the Talbot School of Theology of Biola University, an evangelical Christian college near Los Angeles. His website is Reasonable Faith.

The article is a defense of theology in the face of attacks by "New Atheists."

You might think from the recent spate of atheist best-sellers that belief in God has become intellectually indefensible for thinking people today. But a look at these books by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, among others, quickly reveals that the so-called New Atheism lacks intellectual muscle. It is blissfully ignorant of the revolution that has taken place in Anglo-American philosophy. It reflects the scientism of a bygone generation rather than the contemporary intellectual scene.

Craig defends the idea that there are rational arguments for the existence of God. In other words, believers do not need to fall back on revelation as their only defense of superstitious beliefs.

The renaissance of Christian philosophy has been accompanied by a resurgence of interest in natural theology, that branch of theology that seeks to prove God's existence apart from divine revelation. The goal of natural theology is to justify a broadly theistic worldview, one that is common among Christians, Jews, Muslims, and deists. While few would call them compelling proofs, all of the traditional arguments for God's existence, not to mention some creative new arguments, find articulate defenders today.

What's interesting about this claim is that the arguments (see below) are the very ones that Dawkins discusses in The God Delusion. You might recall that there are many theists who argue that there are much better, more sophisticated, arguments that Dawkins ignores.¹ I thought it would be fun to list the arguments here so we can see how the modern theist justifies belief in God. You'll have to read the article to see how Craig deals with objections to each one.

The cosmological argument

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the explanation of the universe's existence is God.

The kalam cosmological argument

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The teleological argument

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

The moral argument

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

The ontological argument

1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
7. Therefore, God exists.

There you have it. These are the rational arguments for the existence of God from a Professor of Philosophy at a Christian college. Read 'em and weep, all you heathen atheists!

---

1. We are never told what these arguments are, only that they exist somewhere.

[Hat Tip: Jason Rosenhouse]