Initial Thoughts on God? A Debate Between A Christian and an Atheist.

Here are some top-of-my-head thoughts on this book I just finished.  Hope I make myself clear.

Just finished this book. Gonna re-read it and take notes. Dr. Sinnott-Armstrong is Craig’s most powerful opponent that I’ve seen [read] so far. His most powerful arguments are the problem of evil and the hiddenness of God, though I don’t think his arguments against God’s coherence are very powerful, nor do I think he responded to the moral argument or the resurrection hypothesis adequately.

Some of Craig’s responses to the problem of evil presupposed a Christian worldview, which only convinces people who already believe, so I don’t always see the point of putting it in a debate.

Also, there are some points about Craig’s arguments Sinnott-Armstrong made that interested me. Armstrong claims that Craig’s arguments don’t lead to the God with the attributes that Christians believe, so Craig is guilty of a “bloated conclusion.” Craig claims that his arguments make a cumulative case that, when put together, lead to the God of the Bible. Armstrong responds by saying that Craig has no reason to assume that the being at the end of his syllogisms are even the same. Why assume they all conclude one being?

Also, some people say the theistic arguments are like a chain link that is only as strong as the weakest link, but Craig says it’s more like chainmail, with each chain reinforcing the whole suit. However, he seems to need all of his arguments to conclude that God has all the traditional attributes that they were arguing for and against in this book (perhaps the resurrection of Christ argument, if it works, can lead to the God of the Bible by itself though). If even one of these arguments fails, then he hasn’t shown the existence of the kind of God he’s arguing for. For example, perhaps all the arguments for God’s existence succeed except for the moral argument, so I have no rational reason to believe that this God is “all-good”.  So it just seems to me that his case is more like a chain link, because if one argument fails, then he hasn’t established the kind of God we Christians typically believe in.

Hope I made myself clear here.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Philosophy. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Initial Thoughts on God? A Debate Between A Christian and an Atheist.

  1. Sam Harper says:

    For example, perhaps all the arguments for God’s existence succeed except for the moral argument, so I have no rational reason to believe that this God is “all-good”.

    I don’t think I agree with that. If the argument from the resurrection of Jesus is sound, that would be enough to establish that God is all-good.

  2. I thought about that after I posted this. If it can be shown that Jesus did resurrect, then we have good grounds to trust what the Bible teaches about God.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s