Show Notes

CORE #05 – Good Reasons to Believe in God (Part 3)

Quick Tip

• Create an apologetics folder on your computer with 4 big categories: God, Jesus, the Church, and Testimony. Use this folder to organize articles, blog posts, and important videos on topics related to apologetics. You can also create sub-folders within each category like the resurrection or the problem of evil. That way, when you need to prepare for a specific conversation, you will know where to look for important information.
• For more details on this method, check out this blog post.

 Show Outline

•  We examine three abductive arguments (i.e. arguments to the best explanation), which differ in structure and force from the metaphysical demonstrations discussed in CORE #03 and CORE #04. However, they are still important arguments that can help persuade others that God exists.

The Kalam Argument

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

• The cause of the universe must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, and plausibly personal. The best explanation is that God is the cause of the beginning of the universe.
• The first premise is very secure on philosophical grounds. Its denial would entail a denial of the principle of causality or the principle of sufficient reason.
• The second premise is supported by all the best scientific evidence, but, in my view, it has not been successfully defended by philosophical arguments.
  • Dr. Feser explains in this blog post why Dr. Craig’s philosophical arguments for the 2nd premise don’t work.
  • On a recent Pints with Aquinas episode, Karlo Broussard agrees with Feser’s position.
  • On this episode of The FreeThinking podcast, you can hear how the objection is raised but not adequately addressed.
• I’m hopeful that a philosophical demonstration for the second premise could be forthcoming, but I have not seen it yet.
• Nonetheless, I find the Kalam Argument to be a good argument for God supported by a philosophically sound premise (premise 1) and a scientifically sound premise (premise 2).

The Fine-tuning Argument

1. The fine-tuning of the constants and quantities is due to necessity, chance, or design.
2. It’s not due to necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it’s due to design.

• Dustin Crummett’s blog article on fine-tuning.
• Robin Collins’ long article defending the fine-tuning argument.
• Luke Barnes book on the subject. I have not read this, but Barnes is considered a foremost authority on this argument.
• Objection #1: Maybe we just got really lucky.
  • This underestimates the numbers and no one intuits chance in such situations in the real world.
  • If you sat down at a poker table and someone was dealt 10 royal flushes in a row, you would hypothesize that the game was rigged, even if the poker player insisted he was lucky.
• Objection #2: Maybe there’s a world ensemble with so many universes that chance is a plausible answer. 
  • There’s no empirical evidence of a multiverse.
  • The universe generator itself would need to be finely tuned. Would its fine-tuning be due to necessity, chance, or 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.

• Check out William Lane Craig’s debate with Sam Harris on the moral argument.
• Objection #1: Are you saying atheists can’t be good people? 
  • No, we’re not saying this.
  • Atheists can do good, moral actions. However, there can be no foundation for objective moral actions and moral facts if God does not exist.
• Objection #2: What about the Euthyphro dilemma?
  • It is a false dilemma. Dr. Craig offers a third option that, “God commands things because He is good.” They’re not because they are good because of some standard independent of Him.
  • There is more nuance here, and Dr. Feser explains how an Aristotelian-Thomist would answer this objection.
• Trent Horn defends a moral argument in conversation on this recent podcast episode.

When to Use Each Argument

• Kalam Argument
  • Good conversation starter when someone claims to have no evidence for God’s existence.
  • Good argument for someone who is impressed by scientific evidence.
• Fine-tuning Argument
  • Case 1: Someone else raises the argument and says it’s silly.
  • Case 2: Someone says design arguments have been disproven by evolution. Perhaps some arguments have been disproved by evolution, but the very success of evolution itself presupposes fine-tuning. So, there are new design arguments (i.e. from fine-tuning) that are untouched by evolution.
  • Case 3: Someone says strict, tangible evidence is the only thing they will accept. Present the fine-tuning argument in the hope that they mention the multi-verse (or universe generator). Suddenly, they believe in something that cannot be seen, touched, tasted, or smelled. The multiverse is not observable by us and there is no strict, tangible evidence for it.
• Moral Argument
  • When someone is outraged or jaded by what they perceive to be moral failures of societies, religious organizations, and individuals, present the moral argument. Ask the person, “Do you think those things are objectively wrong?” and then use that question to lead into a moral argument.

Resources Mentioned

• Dr. Feser’s blog post on the philosophical arguments for the second premise of the Kalam argument.
• The FreeThinking podcast episode on the second premise of the Kalam argument.
• The Pints with Aquinas episode with Karlo Broussard
• Dustin Crummett’s blog article on fine-tuning.
• Robin Collins’ long article defending the fine-tuning argument.
• Luke Barnes book on the subject.
• Trent Horn’s Book Answering Atheism
• 3 Questions to Ask an Atheist (blog post)

Feser Signed My Copy of His Book “Aquinas” in 2015 (Here’s the Proof, though his signature is pretty bad so some might consider this a forgery. It’s not!)