God?: A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist

Craig and Sinnott-Armstrong, both college professors and authors, present an engaging high-level debate that should delight readers. Most of the book is a slightly edited version of 2 actual live debates, held several months apart, in 1999 and 2000. In the 1st half of the book, Craig speaks first, S-A rebuts, then Craig is allowed a summary (for the book) clarifying his position. In the 2nd half of the book, roles are reversed - S-A speaks first, Craig rebuts, then S-A is allowed a summary (for the book) solidifying HIS views. Be ready for courtroom-like drama as sparks fly in an electrified environment of sharply divided opinions. There are accusations of straw men, as hoc arguments, bloated conclusions, drawing false dichotomies, excessive footnotes (questionable appeals to authorities), equivocation, begging the question, misrepresentation, failure to understand, failure the answer the question, etc. There is a certain amount of hair-splitting, similar to when Bill Clinton tried to redefine the word "is." Once the name-calling subsides, however, and the dust settles, several standard arguments remain, passionately appealed by both gentlemen. Craig presents 5 good reasons to believe that God exists: 1. God makes sense of the origin of the universe. 2. God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe. 3. God makes sense of objective moral values in the world. 4. God makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. 5. God can be immediately known and experienced. S-A present 3 arguments that God does not exist: 1. The problem of evil - An all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God should not and would not allow to occur the horrible tragedies that have always plagued humanity. 2. The problem of action - God is independent of time. I really didn't think this section was very relevant. 3. The argument from ignorance - no evidence. Craig handles the argument of the origin of the universe well. His strongest argument concerns the fine-tuning of the universe. "It seems vastly more probable that a life-prohibiting universe rather than a life-permitting universe like ours should exist. The existence of intelligent life depends on a conspiracy of initial conditions, that must be fine tuned to a degree that is literally incomprehensible and incalculable." He includes quotes from Hawkings and others who appear to support his view. S-A challenges this argument, but I think not well. I would like to read more about this subject from a third party, and references are provided in the bibliography. The moral argument from Craig is not convincing to me. Evolutionary and cultural studies suggest that in early human history, groupings of people up to about 50 used peer-pressure effectively to maintain order. As population groupings began to exceed that amount, the system failed and a more rigid hierarchy, including laws, supplemented the older peer-pressure methods for handling "cheaters." In this scenario, Man's strong tendency

Like others reviewers have said, the main purpose of this book isn't to definitively "settle" the issue either way (as if that's possible), but merely to highlight some of the more pertinent issues surrounding the claims of Christianity as well as its various criticisms. The end result, as one reviewer already pointed out, reveals that, far from being solely the realm of crackpots and the "weak-minded", Christianity is as a viable intellectual option (which is not to say, of course, without reproach.)As for the substance of the debate itself, both writers were highly competent and I found each writer at his best in presenting the case for his respective viewpoint (Chapter 1, 4)Craig makes a strong case for a finite universe, using widely accepted scientific evidence. He also explains many of the flaws inherent in the various infinite views (oscillating universe, many-worlds hypothesis, etc.), which he, I think rightly, dismisses as ad hoc avoidances of the serious implications which a finite universe seems to imply. By way of example, Craig shows how the oscillating theory of the universe (i.e. a never-ending series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches) is really dead on arrival because scientists can't get over the theoretic hump of how exactly the universe would "restart" after collapsing in on itself, which seems to be an irreversible process. (I should also probably point out that even the very concept of "collapse" itself is controversial; everyone knows the universe is expanding, but nobody knows whether or not it will continue to do so in the future.) Of course, the cosmological argument only gets you so far as deism, so Craig continues his presentation with arguments from morality, the resurrection of Jesus, and personal experience, each bringing one closer to the traditional description of the Christian God (i.e. omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent, caring, etc.) All of these points are also laid out well, although I wouldn't put as much emphasis on personal experience, myself, since it seems to be so subjective (although Craig apparently recognizes this.)Sinnott-Armstrong's case for atheism is no less forceful. Indeed, I, like many other reviewers, was taken aback by his directness. For being a first-time debater, he was very incisive in his criticisms. Sinnott-Armstrong's main line of argument revolved around the ever-popular "problem of evil" (i.e. how could a loving God allow so much suffering?) His thesis is that evil is not justified unless it is absolutely necessary for some compensating good. He then proceeds to field many possible rebuttals (some of which I think are straw men; he concedes as much when he says that a few might be "outdated", but still includes them.) He concludes the argument by stating that none of these arguments fulfills this condition, especially in regards to natural evils (disease, earthquakes, etc.) He also makes arguments from unbelief, and a rather obscure argument surrounding the (im)possible interaction be

God? Is based on two public debates that occurred in 1999 and 2000 between William Craig and William Sinnott-Armstrong regarding the existence of God. In my opinion this is an excellent resource for thoughtful atheists and theists alike. Of the debates I have read on this subject God? is the best.In the first part of the book Craig opens in defense of God (Christian God), Sinnott-Armstrong rebuts then Craig closes. The second part is structured the other way round with Sinnott-Armstrong opening in defense of atheism; Craig rebuts then Sinnott-Armstrong closes. Throughout the discussion the debaters cover all the pertinent arguments (cosmological, design, existence of evil, revelation etc) and are rigorous and respectful in defending their views. Those familiar to the area of religious philosophy and apologetics undoubtedly know the work of Bill Craig a brilliant and prolific philosopher. In addition to his formidable intellectual abilities Craig is also an outstanding and experienced debater. As a result, in live debates he often overwhelms even the most capable opponent. This format which allowed the participants more time to formulate their arguments was beneficial. Sinnott-Armstrong is not an experienced debater and this approach helped him to clearly articulate his arguments. As a result, Sinnott-Armstrong puts forward one of the strongest argument for atheism that I have heard.After reading this debate, I would hope that several things would be apparent to a thoughtful and opened-minded person. First, and most importantly, this is an important question that warrants our consideration. Second, a rational proof of God's existence beyond a reasonable doubt is probably not possible (if it was where would free will be?). Finally, the existence of God is a live intellectual option. From my personal standpoint, as someone who was raised an educated with an atheist/agnostic worldview the last point is the most striking. With respect to who won the debate, It has been my experience that initial assessments are normally emotive and determined by the viewer's assumptions.There are lots of other debate books out there (and a lot free material on Bill Craig's web-site and the Internet Infidels site), however God? is well worth the purchases.

Some have suggested that Craig has won *this* debate. That's not the way I read it and I think many people would agree. I see Craig winning the case for a beginning to temporal reality, and having supporting reasons for believing that the "fine tuning" aspects of our universes temporal beginning is the work of an intelligent being. Even Sinnott-Armstrong eventually concedes to these, but that doesn't prove or disprove the existence of the Christian God, an eternal entity that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, since none of this logically requires a Christain God. Sinnot-Armstrong ends the debate with three reasons for atheism: an argument from ignorance, the problem of action, and the problem of evil. The problem of evil seems to me to be Sinnott-Armstrong's best case against the idea of the Christian God, arguing that natural evils (e.g., flood, famine, disease, etc) aren't or don't seem adequately compensated for by an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity: 1. If there were an all-powerful and all-good God, then there would not be any evil in the world unless that evil is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good.2. There is lots of evil in the world.3. Much of that evil is not logically necessary for any adequately compensating good.4. Therefore, there is no God who is all-powerful and all-good.In this compensation theory, evil requires a greater good to follow from it and I believe that Sinnott-Armstrong makes a better case than Craig that it does not. However, others may feel differently and the issue is about the meaningfulness of the responses to the individual. This is where the debate ends and why I gave Sinnot-Armstrong a better overall score. However, the Christian God belief doesn't need a compensation theory for evil and all arguments (that I've seen so far) using the existence of evil to *logically disprove* the existence of God have been specious. As a matter of logic, there is no logical necessity to these types of arguments and refutation of this claim is simple. For instance: God is all-powerful and all-loving, but evil exists. Therefore, God has a good purpose for evil. Another is: God is all-powerful and all-loving, but evil exists. Therefore, God will eventually destroy evil.If your looking for proof or disproof that a Christian God *exists*, you wouldn't find it here or anywhere else, but what you will find is that a belief in the Christian God doesn't result in an irrational belief. It's the existence question that is a matter of faith on either side of the issue.An education can come from debates about God: how different views on God can be argued, how opposing sides can misrepresent each others positions. So I highly recommended this book as a relatively jargon free introduction.[ASIDE: By not extrapolating beyond what the data and arguments indicate, it's interesting to note the support they give for a other kinds of non-materialistic philosophy.]

In this new book, cleverly titled simply "God?", William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong debate the most important question with surprising clarity and wit.William Lane Craig is an experienced debator with excellent credentials. Over the years he has debated many famous atheists, and is well known for beating almost every opponent hands down. Craig's style is quick and confident, and, in my opinion, his arguments are generally very forceful and convincing. His great effort in this book, while expected, is very much appreciated. He is not afraid to get right down to the issue and into the trenches- which helps the debate to move along at lightning pace.The real surprise here, in my mind, is the showing by Sinnott-Armstrong. Despite a lack of debating experience, he seems to me to be the best opponent Craig has faced (in any debate I have read). He is quick, witty, and intelligent- advancing objections to almost all of Craig's arguments (in other debates, atheists often just pick a few points of contention, but Sinnott-Armstrong challenges the whole case.)Both participants in the debate give strong efforts, and it leads to a fantastic and engaging book on the existence of God. If you are looking for a debate on the existence of God, then look no further. This book is highly recommended.