"Sophisticated" Arguments for God's Existence

There has been a spate of books come out recently by atheists criticizing the belief in God. These books portray the belief in God as being inherently irrational. This a rather strong statement, especially considering that 85%+ of the people in this country profess a belief in God. Included in that number is a sizable minority of scientists (40%), a group whose job it is to use rational arguments to probe for explanations of the natural world. I do not know the percentage of philosophers, but I suspect it is even higher than scientists.

With this type of dissent, it is not surprising that all of these "New Atheists" have been criticized for ignoring "sophisticated arguments" for the existence of God. This argument has been presented by people I respect as well as people I don't.

I have read quite a few arguments for God's existence and I am still looking for these sophisticated arguments. The people who chastise the "New Atheists" for lacking this sophisticated knowledge assert that these arguments exist but they don't tell us what they are.

William Lane Craig is a research professor of philosophy at the Talbot School of Theology in La Miranda, CA. He is credited with reviving the Kalam Cosmological Argument for God's existence. He has his own website entitled "Reasonable Faith" and is leading light in evangelical theology. So he should be able to tell us what those "sophisticated arguments" are.

Well, he tries in an article in Christianity Today. He begins by saying:

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.

This is the same thing we have heard before. The "New Atheists" are unaware of some sort of new REVOLUTION in philosophy that has pushed our criticisms to the point of being blase'. This revolution has shown our objections to be fallacious. They must be some strong arguments, huh?

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. ...

Wow!! Not only does this "renaissance" clobber our ideas that the belief in God is inherently irrational, it shows that all major monotheistic religions as well as deism is inherently rational. This MUST be powerful stuff ... right?

... 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??? Few people would even find these arguments compelling?? Yet these arguments are supposed to comprise a "revolution" and a "renaissance"?? Does this mean that the "New Atheists" are being criticized for is not addressing uncompelling arguments?? Does this mean that Craig thinks we need to address every variation of even the stupid ones??

I think it does. In this series of blogs I hope to address all of Craig's "revolutionary" arguments from Natural Theology (in fact, I already have in addressed them in previous blogs and comments). But I think I will end this introductory blog by listing the arguments and Craig's rationale for them. I think this alone is sufficient to show why it is that Craig says that "... few would call them compelling proofs."

(A) 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.

(B) 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.

(C) The Telological 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.

(D) 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.

(E) 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.

Those are the 5 arguments that Lane gives us and the logic behind them, in his own words. I hope to take an in-depth look at all of these arguments in future blogs, but for now, I think just listing them is enough to show that these "sophisticated arguments" are incredibly weak at best.