William Lane Craig’s moral argument

Now for Craig’s moral argument (or “axiological argument”), which I’ve sometimes thought is Craig’s worst argument (though picking a single worst argument from Craig is hard). Here’s the basic argument: [Read more...]

The fine-tuning argument (as told by William Lane Craig)

The next argument Craig presents in Reasonable Faith (after his versions of the cosmological argument) is the fine-tuning argument, which is a version of the argument from design or teleological argument. I’ve previously discussed problems with other versions of this argument here and here, those posts will be useful background to this one. Craig’s version is a [Read More...]

Two more revealingly bad cosmological arguments from Craig’s debates

These aren’t in Reasonable Faith, but there are two lines Craig uses constantly in his debates that are worth noting. Both are generally used as part of the Kalam argument, but have nothing to do with it logically. The first is his frequent use of the rhetorical question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” (see, for example, his [Read More...]

Angry Atheists? chapter 9: Arguments for the existence of God I: There are no good arguments for the existence of God

I’m in the process of turning several recent blog posts into another chapter of The Book. The chapter is titled, simply, “There are no good arguments for the existence of God.” It’s only about half-finished, but I’m very eager for feedback on how the parts (which were generally well-received here) are fitting together into a [Read More...]

Privileging the hypothesis: the most common flaw in arguments for the existence of God

I believe the bad reasoning found in O’Reilly’s argument for the existence of God is just one example of a more general problem  that is very common in arguments for the existence of God, including ones made by professional philosophers of religion. It’s related to the problems discussed in chapter 4, but it’s a little [Read More...]

Kalam III: The very brief part that actually argues for God

Now that I’ve argued that Craig has no good arguments for premise (2) of Kalam (at least not reasons he can consistently use without also ruling out God as an explanation for the universe’s beginning),  I could move on to the next argument. But I think Craig’s arguments for the claim that the cause of the universe is [Read More...]

Kalam II: Philosophical arguments for the beginning of the universe

Now I’ll deal with Craig’s philosophical arguments for the claim the universe had a beginning. The first argument goes like this (Reasonable Faith pp. 116-120): [Read more...]

A note on my sources for Craig’s arguments

In writing my post series on Craig’s arguments, my main source for them is his book Reasonable Faith. My main reason for picking this book is it’s the only source I know of that has all of Craig’s arguments in one place. It’s also the book which I suspect people are most likely to have. If you [Read More...]

Kalam I: Why the Big Bang isn’t evidence of God

Craig’s second argument in Reasonable Faith, is probably the one he’s most famous for, the Kalam cosmological argument. He begins by arguing: [Read more...]