Christian apologetics

[Mr.M]

Dr. William Lane Craig a Christian philosopher/theologian has an argument from contingency that states;
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.
Now what follows logically from these three premises?From 1 and 3 it logically follows that:4. The universe has an explanation of its existence, and from 2 and 4 the conclusion logically follows:
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God
Source is: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/argument ... z38D6f5Xgw
He segues into divine inspiration and resurrection for evidence to connect Christianity with this argument. I find the Christian version of god in-congruent to the logical and ordered deity/god Craig argues for in his premise before he makes said connection.

My question to the community for debate is: how does Craig’s logical contingent argument version of god connect (or not connect) with the vision of god found in the Christian bible other than his own “arguments from faith�?

[Goat]

Dr. William Lane Craig a Christian philosopher/theologian has an argument from contingency that states;
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.
Now what follows logically from these three premises?From 1 and 3 it logically follows that:4. The universe has an explanation of its existence, and from 2 and 4 the conclusion logically follows:
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God
Source is: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/argument ... z38D6f5Xgw
He segues into divine inspiration and resurrection for evidence to connect Christianity with this argument. I find the Christian version of god in-congruent to the logical and ordered deity/god Craig argues for in his premise before he makes said connection.

My question to the community for debate is: how does Craig’s logical contingent argument version of god connect (or not connect) with the vision of god found in the Christian bible other than his own “arguments from faith�?

It doesn't what so ever. He said he was going to make that logic leap, but I have yet to see it. As for that reasoning (it's not logic), there are huge holes in it, and lots of logical fallacies. He really isn't a philosopher so much as an apologist who is abusing the logical argument format.

[Donray]

It is made up false logic.

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence

Then one would need to explain how God come to exist. So far there is no explanation on how God was made. What external causes made God? One cannot say EVERYTHING has a cause and then say except God.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

This is a totally ignorant statement. There is no connection with the universes explanation of and God. Show me any scientific explanation of the universe and God. Show me one theory in a scientific paper that says some God must have created the universe because there is absolutely no other explanation.

Since both 1 and 2 are false the rest is false.

[mwtech]

It is alarming to me how many people claim that the universe existing is undeniable proof that a GOD created it. But if i said
1. the universe exists, and it must have an explanation for existing.
2. That explanation is a multiverse that has been in existence forever.

People would be screaming at me that there is no evidence for a mutiverse and it is just a made up hypothesis. Which is exactly true. How can you not see that the same applies to any hypothesis here, including God. He is just one of several, none of which there is evidence for. This is confirmation bias at its strongest. I felt like kicking myself for using this argument in the past when I finally looked at it from a scientific standpoint. Talk about a facepalm. That's one of those things that once you see it, you wonder how you ever could have missed it.

[Divine Insight]

People would be screaming at me that there is no evidence for a mutiverse and it is just a made up hypothesis. Which is exactly true.

It's not exactly true. There is evidence that points to the existence of a multiverse. This is why it has become a scientific hypothesis. It's not merely a guess that came out of the blue. There are reasons to make this hypothesis.

It's just that these reasons do not constitute a compelling proof that this is necessarily the correct conclusion to draw from the evidence we have. There may potentially be other explanations that also explain this evidence. But the hypothesis of a multiverse is certainly one of these.

But there is no compelling evidence upon which to base a hypothesis of the existence of a God. Especially not the type of egoistical Godhead described by Mediterranean religions. On the contrary, there are far more reasons to suspect that such a personified egotistical God who sits on a throne in heaven observing life on earth does not exist.

[Donray]

I guess there are no Christians that want to defend Criag and his illogic.

[Jashwell]

I believe the point of the thread isn't to address WLC's argument but to discuss how his arguments or other classical arguments could connect with Christianity directly.

E.g. How does the cosmological argument lead to the Christian God

[Donray]

It does not lead to god. I think Christians need to defend the logic that it does lead to god.

I gave reasons why the logic is not logical and therefore my logic that disproves Craig stands as the most logical.

None of Craig's points prove that there is a god. It only prove that Christians and Apologetics do did understand logic and they cannot defend that there is a god except by faith. And there is not reason for them to try to justify there gods existence.

[instantc]

None of Craig's points prove that there is a god. It only prove that Christians and Apologetics do did understand logic and they cannot defend that there is a god except by faith. And there is not reason for them to try to justify there gods existence.

I am not an apologist, but I find that your criticism is unwarranted. Note, that he or any other apologist I've heard debating hasn't claimed to be able to prove that God exists. Rather, they tend to make much more modest claims.

Cosmological argument has no connection to most of the properties that Christianity assigns to its deity, nor has anyone ever claimed so, so pointing out that fact does nothing to discredit the argument, you are beating up a straw man so to say. In the apologists mission, it serves as a groundwork for the one argument that actually attempts to evidence God's existence, namely the historical case for the resurrection. A Christian apologist claims that in the light of the findings of the cosmological argument (and some other common deistic arguments), the best explanation for the eye-wittness accounts described in the gospels would be that God resurrected Jesus from the dead. This is why they bother with the cosmological argument in the first place.

[Donray]

None of Craig's points prove that there is a god. It only prove that Christians and Apologetics do did understand logic and they cannot defend that there is a god except by faith. And there is not reason for them to try to justify there gods existence.

I am not an apologist, but I find that your criticism is unwarranted. Note, that he or any other apologist I've heard debating hasn't claimed to be able to prove that God exists. Rather, they tend to make much more modest claims.

Cosmological argument has no connection to most of the properties that Christianity assigns to its deity, nor has anyone ever claimed so, so pointing out that fact does nothing to discredit the argument, you are beating up a straw man so to say. In the apologists mission, it serves as a groundwork for the one argument that actually attempts to evidence God's existence, namely the historical case for the resurrection. A Christian apologist claims that in the light of the findings of the cosmological argument (and some other common deistic arguments), the best explanation for the eye-wittness accounts described in the gospels would be that God resurrected Jesus from the dead. This is why they bother with the cosmological argument in the first place.

What you say is not true. First, there is absolutely no proof about Jesus resurrection. The only thing is in the Bible that is full of just stories that prove nothing except to the believer. Where is your evidence that is not contained in the bible of fables written 70 years or more after the fact. And if you are a Christian believing that Jesus is/was God means that he could not die and therefore could not be resurrected.

Second, do you believe you will be resurrected as the bible stories imply and that all your wounds etc. will be on your resurrected body? No one that is cremated would be resurrected.

Craig is using the Cosmological argument to prove gods existence. You don't think the Christian god created the universe? You are saying that the bible has nothing in it about god creating the universe? I think you don't understand the bible and what Craig says about in the bible it states that In the beginning God created ....." You should learn the bible and what Craig states from the bible when he tries to prove the Cosmological argument.