William Lane Craig, a renowned philosopher and Christian apologist, engages in a lively dialogue with Kevin Scharp, a professor known for his philosophical insights on atheism. They discuss compelling arguments for the existence of God, including the contingency of the universe and moral values. The conversation delves into the complexities of belief, contrasting theistic and atheistic views on morality and the personal experiences that shape faith. Their debate touches on confidence levels in beliefs and the emotional challenges surrounding existential questions.
Dr. Craig argues that the universe's contingent existence necessitates a transcendent cause, equating this with the concept of God.
Scientific evidence indicates that the universe had a finite beginning, suggesting an initial cause that must be timeless and immaterial.
The emergence of objective moral values is presented as dependent on a divine lawgiver, distinguishing theistic beliefs from atheistic perspectives.
Deep dives
The Existence of God as an Explanation for the Universe
The concept that God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe proposes that everything contingent must have an explanation. If one were to encounter an object such as a ball in the woods, the natural assumption would be to seek a reason for its existence rather than accepting that it exists inexplicably. Applying this reasoning to the universe—the ultimate contingent entity—leads to the conclusion that its existence must stem from a transcendent reality. This reasoning culminates in the assertion that a personal agent, which is equated with what is commonly understood as God, is necessary to account for the existence of the universe.
The Origin of the Universe and the Concept of a Beginning
Scientific evidence suggests that the universe is not eternal but had a finite beginning, which is a pivotal point in the argument for God's existence. Notable physicists like Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin have demonstrated that any universe in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be infinite and must have an initial space-time boundary. This raises the question of what caused the universe to come into being, leading to the conclusion that it necessitates a transcendent cause. Consequently, this cause must be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial, leading to the identification of this cause as a personal creator.
Mathematics and Its Relation to the Universe
The applicability of mathematics to the physical world is considered uncanny and a point of significant inquiry. This raises the question of how abstract mathematical entities can have such profound relevance to the material universe. While naturalistic views might argue that this relationship is coincidental, theism suggests that the universe was designed with a mathematical structure by a creator. Thus, the existence of God is proposed as the best explanation for the remarkable effectiveness of mathematics in describing the laws of nature.
Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Life
The emergence of finely-tuned conditions conducive to intelligent life in the universe presents a compelling argument for design. The likelihood of these unique constants arising purely from chance is described as infinitesimal, making the design hypothesis more plausible. By examining the three possible explanations—necessity, chance, or design—it becomes clear that both physical necessity and random chance fall short. Therefore, the design argument posits that the precision with which the universe is fine-tuned strongly implies the existence of a cosmic designer.
The Basis of Objective Morality
The existence of objective moral values and duties often leads to the question of their origin, which is presented as a significant point of differentiation between theistic and atheistic views. On a naturalistic perspective, moral values are seen as subjective constructs that arise from societal or evolutionary influences, which can lead to moral relativism. Conversely, theistic perspectives argue that objective moral values must be grounded in a divine lawgiver—God himself. Thus, the claim follows that if God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties cannot either, suggesting the necessity of God's existence for a coherent moral framework.