Does God Exist?
William Lane Craig says there are good reasons for thinking that He does.
The renaissance of Christian philosophy has been accompanied by a resurgence of interest in natural theology – that branch of theology which seeks to prove God’s existence without appeal to the resources of authoritative divine revelation – for instance, through philosophical argument.
Natural theology. Where here are the dots connected between philosophical language and the sort of things that scientists might do in grappling with the existence of a God, the God? How far removed is it from defining or deducing God into existence?
Natural theology: theology or knowledge of God based on observed facts and experience apart from divine revelation.
That certainly works for me. Some have personal experiences that lead them to believe in a God, the God. Or they observe something empirically, materially, phenomenologically that seems to indicate to them that God can exist...if not any specific God.
Link us to it.
All of the traditional philosophical arguments for God’s existence, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological arguments, not to mention creative, new arguments, find intelligent and articulate defenders on the contemporary philosophical scene.
Arguments...arguments...arguments.
Anyone here familiar with some of the new "intelligent and articulate" ones? Please note them. Let's discuss them in regards to the points I make here:
1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of a God, the God
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in a God, the God.
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God
But what about the so-called ‘New Atheism’ exemplified by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens? Doesn’t it herald a reversal of this trend? Not really. As is evident from the authors it interacts with – or rather, doesn’t interact with – the New Atheism is, in fact, a pop-cultural phenomenon lacking in intellectual muscle and blissfully ignorant of the revolution that has taken place in Anglo-American philosophy. It tends to reflect the scientism of a bygone generation, rather than the contemporary intellectual scene.
Okay, the contemporary intellectual scene and God. What are these new arguments as they pertain to the question, "how ought one to live morally in a world awash in conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change?"
How do they lack intellectual muscle and wallow in blissful ignorance other than that they challenge those who embrace God and religion...by noting how the True Believers themselves present arguments totally lacking in intellectual muscle and very much predicated on blissful ignorance.
Also, given these new assessments, how
do they change the part where the dots are connected between morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side of it.
