The Best Argument for God

by Patrick Flynn

When the medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas addressed the best arguments against God in his masterwork, the Summa Theologica, he listed only two. The first was the problem of How can God ― who is perfectly good ― exist alongside that which is against Him? His Is God really needed to explain the world? In this landmark work, Patrick Flynn presents the best arguments for God while also addressing the strongest objections. This book is destined to become the apologetic gold standard for defending classical theism against atheistic naturalism. Flynn clearly identifies what is at stake and then provides you with cogent, accessible, yet potent defenses to counter those arguments that atheists routinely make to justify their claim that there is no God. Flynn masterfully defines commonly misconstrued terms ― from worldview and intelligibility to scientism, ontology, and metaphysical intuition ― and illustrates them with real-world examples. He explains the Principle of Sufficient Reason and how it is used to support the reality of God. You also will acquire the foundation you need to understand the best philosophical arguments God’s existence. Drawing from insights from philosophers Aristotle and Aquinas to Leibniz and Lonergan, you will find extensive philosophical reasons to accept and
With sidebar definitions and detailed explanations, Flynn guides you in learning authentic reasons for your belief in God. He evaluates whether it’s simpler to believe in God or not, and he provides numerous arguments from philosophy, science, and plain common sense. Additionally, you will discover how even the traditionally held attributes of God point to His existence. This seminal book turns the tables on and pokes holes in the theory of naturalism. Flynn’s in-depth analysis will give you the tools you need to share your belief in such a way that those who deny God’s existence will have to defend their view. Also featured is an appendix with a dozen additional objections and bulletproof replies for the existence of God.

Genres: Philosophy, Catholic, Religion

256 pages, Paperback

Published October 17, 2023

Reviews

[Amora · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely phenomenal book. This book deserves this title. Flynn presents a classical and contemporary argument for theism. The first argument is essentially a contingency argument that has three steps: argue in favor of the principle that everything has an explanation for its existence, applying this principle to all of reality, and then arguing that this means there exists a necessary being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good. The way Flynn presents this argument is very clean and I have little qualms with it.

Now, the contemporary argument is strong as well. Flynn argues that atheism can only explain some, but not all, of what theism can, and can only do so when strapped with greater complexity. Flynn argues that theism can explain why stability and order, beings like us, morality, and even evil exist why atheism cannot unless it adds more complexity. I found this persuasive as well.

This book should indeed be the gold standard in arguments for God at the popular level.

[Matthew Adelstein · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very well-done cumulative case for God. I disagree with some of the arguments, but all in all, very convincing.

[Nathan Bozeman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pat, in this book, gives an incredibly powerful cumulative case for God's existence, followed by another powerful worldview critique of naturalism, followed by a wonderful treatment on the Problem of Evil. It is written for the lay person, but doesn't lack any rigor of an academic book. Highly recommend for anyone interested in philosophy of religion!

[Jacob Strange · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a great book for anyone curious about theistic arguments, and for theists to strengthen their arguments. Flynn does a better job than any author I have read of finding the middle ground between elementary level arguments and overly dense philosophical jargon type of arguments. While I think both of those have their place, this book is a great place to graduate from some of the more basic kalam type of arguments. The arguments are extremely practical and he does a great job of explaining the jargon when it is necessary. I would recommend this book to any atheist that is genuinely curious.

Side note: Some of the complaints I have heard are completely baseless. The most common one I have seen is the complaint that the book argues against a straw man. They miss the point of the arguments. Flynn is not saying every atheist holds the explicit position he is attacking. He makes sure to explain why those positions are logically necessary for any physicalist and then makes his argument. It’s also a bit ridiculous to demand that he would articulate every brand of atheism. The book is primarily a positive argument for God and then an attack on what he perceives to be the best objections. I don’t think it’s even relevant whether someone holds an alternative atheist model, the arguments he posits still hold.

[Collin Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Definitely a challenging book without a good knowledge of philosophy (which I don’t have) but still possible to get through since the author tries to explain everything as if you aren’t a philosopher. This is probably a good gateway/intro book to higher level philosophy specifically on the topic of the existence of God. I thought the most interesting parts were those showing that, contrary to popular belief, theism is simpler than naturalism, requiring less fundamental entities to be explained. It’s also good for showing the many absurdities one falls into by holding to naturalism. Lastly, I thought the chapter on the problem of evil was great and left thinking that theism has great explanations for God’s allowing of suffering, and even better predicts a world where there is suffering than naturalism.

[Justin Tardy · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.7

Very mixed feelings on this audiobook. I think overall, the author does a good job of making an argument for the theistic world view. Some of the most compelling thoughts for me:

The infinity argument of “if there’s if there are infinite universes / worlds or an infinite universe, then life is bound to happen,” fails to consider the necessary aspects of life. Even if there are infinite universes, there are no guarantees any/all of them contain the elements of life (“infinite white bricks will never make a green house”)

A lot on the “first cause.” Primarily that there is no “certain answer.” Naturalists will often say the elements for the universe just had to be, but that doesn’t really explain anything.

The formation of consciousness and thoughts aren’t perfectly explained by random factors. Is it really more likely these came about without intentional design.

Some other good points, generally argued as which theory is over 50% likely? Not which is certain. The issues are theories vs theories, not “fact vs theory,” since simply naturalism falls short in a lot of ways too

My biggest gripes are in the delivery. Author writes like a slightly obnoxious debate kid and uses lots of unnecessary phrasing and language, often sounding arrogant or overly confident in some issues (like suffering) that don’t give an automatic + to theism like he claims. This leads to a very wordy delivery too. There are some grand leaps in logic from the need of a higher power to the Catholic god when many other explications could be relevant.

Overall, I like the book for the handful of strong arguments I’ll take away, but there’s a lot of filler and sorting through worse takes before arriving there

[Thomas Beck]

I thought the short section on ontological simplicity was especially illuminative. From a purely probabilistic perspective, it would at first glance seem that naturalism has the advantage over theism, insofar as naturalism posits only one ontological reality (i.e. the universe) whereas theism posits two ontological realities (i.e. the universe and God). Thus, all else being equal, naturalism is the simpler of the worldviews. The problem, however, is that not everything else is equal. One’s philosophical and metaphysical assumptions will be much different on naturalism than on theism, so, ontological simplicity aside, it could be the case that, with regard to the universe, naturalism is a wildly more complicated worldview. Additionally we must consider the fact that naturalism isn’t actually making a claim about the existence of the universe, and nothing else; it is also making a claim about the nonexistence of God. Once again, the comparison between naturalism and theism requires further investigation.

I have heard Trent Horn discuss this topic elsewhere, and he makes the point like this: just because a theory has more parts doesn’t necessarily make it more complicated. Suppose, for instance, that you walk into a woman’s home and find her dead on the floor with a butcher’s knife in her back. With this limited information, it seems someone having killed her is more likely than no one having killed her, even though the former theory has an additional component to it. You have to consider the explanatory cost of simplifying your theory, given other relevant factors.

[Mitchell Boggs · Rating 2 out of 5]

Pros:
1) Good summary of Catholic philosophical tradition arguing for the existence of God (this is also a con). If you can tolerate the cons (not all will be able to), then this is a good summary of Aquinas and his progeny.
2) Sometimes light humored (e.g. references to Yngwie Malmsteen).

Cons:
1) Good summary of Catholic philosophical tradition arguing for the existence of God. Flynn's view for the "best argument" is truly a Catholic one, although he doesn't outright say it. Many of the principles he discusses are not universally accepted by all denominations of Christianity.
2) While Flynn is sometimes light-humored, I find this book inaccessible for most people, other than those who have at least a cursory knowledge of Thomism and related philosophers (e.g. Aristotle all the way to Flynn's podcast friends).
3) I didn't learn anything new. Maybe I missed it, but this book is merely a recitation of Catholic philosophical thought. Essentially, a person could read an article or some of Flynn's other work and get 95% of what is needed on this topic.
4) Flynn doesn't adequately engage with naturalism. For Flynn, naturalism is a convenient straw man that he attempts to defeat. I believe this to be a product of Flynn's reluctance to engage with philosophers and experts outside his own cohort. It's hard to create a coherent and logical argument when surrounded by likeminded thinkers.

[Laurent Dv · Rating 3 out of 5]

Je remercie Sophia Institute Press d’avoir répondu favorablement à ma demande en m’envoyant gratuitement son livre pour cette recension.

Dans ce livre The Best Argument for God, Patt Flynn, un philosophe catholique thomiste amateur cherche à démontrer l'existence de Dieu. Ce qui le rend intéressant, c'est qu'il s'appuie à la fois sur la tradition classique en assumant totalement une métaphysique aristotélico-thomiste (la distinction entre acte et puissance, entre essence et existence, les transcendantaux de l'être, etc.) et sur les résultats féconds de la philosophie de la religion analytique (les travaux par exemple de Richard Swinburne et d'Alvin Plantinga).

C’est un livre de vulgarisation donc assez compréhensible, du même “niveau” que How Reason Can Lead to God de Joshua Rasmussen si ce n’est légèrement plus haut. On appréciera les nombreuses ressources très variées et de qualité auxquelles l'auteur nous renvoie pour approfondir notre étude.

Points faibles

Premièrement, l'auteur cite peu de philosophes naturalistes mots pour mots (il cite par contre beaucoup plus de philosophes théistes), ce qui est dommage quand on prétend réfuter le naturalisme. Cela aurait pu donner plus de sérieux à son livre. Cela risque de donner l'impression qu'il s'attaque à des hommes de paille.

Deuxièmement, on peut aussi regretter le fait que l’auteur n’analyse pas explicitement les prémisses des différents arguments qu’il évalue ou présente. Cela aurait pourtant été bien pratique.

Troisièmement, dans la liste des données étudiées par l’auteur, on aurait pu en rajouter beaucoup d’autres pour avoir une enquête bien plus complète. Par exemple la souffrance animale, le mal téléologique, l’apparente absence de Dieu (problème du “Dieu caché”), les prières non exaucées, le pluralisme religieux (l’existence d’un très grand nombre de religions contradictoires), etc. qu’on retrouve dans Is God the Best Explanation of Things?: A Dialogue coécrit par Joshua Rasmussen (théiste) et Felipe Leon (naturaliste).

Quatrièmement, même si Flynn répond aux arguments des naturalistes classiques, il n’interagit pas avec les naturalistes “libéraux” (comme David Chalmers, Spinoza ou Bertrand Russell) selon la terminologie de Felipe Leon qui (aussi étrange que cela puisse paraître) sont prêts à intégrer des choses immatérielles dans leur théorie.

Résumé

Le but du livre, c'est de faire une analyse comparative du théisme avec le naturalisme (en gros affirmer que seules les choses qu'étudient la science physico-mathématique existent) et de montrer en quoi le théisme (affirmer que Dieu existe) est au moins une bien meilleure explication (si ce n'est la seule satisfaisante) de tout ce qu'on observe dans notre monde. Avant d’aller plus loin, il faut faire attention : le naturalisme est un athéisme (puisque que si seules des choses sensibles et physiques existent, alors forcément Dieu en tant qu’être immatériel n’existe pas) mais tout athéisme n’est pas un naturalisme (on peut être athée, croire que Dieu n’existe pas mais pourtant que des esprits finis et limités existent, par exemple des fantômes).

Le livre se découpe grosso modo en deux grandes parties, assez similaires que celles qu'on trouve dans How Reason Can Lead to God de Joshua Rasmussen.

Dans la première partie, Flynn formule un argument cosmologique qui combine à la fois la version de Leibniz (basée sur le principe de raison suffisante) et la version thomiste (qui reprend les deux premières voies de Thomas d'Aquin). En cela il s'apparente aux arguments de Frédéric Guillaud et Matthieu Lavagna. Il démontre en gros qu'on a besoin d'un être nécessaire qui a en soi la raison de son existence pour réussir à expliquer l'existence d'êtres contingents. Il identifie ensuite cet être au Dieu monothéiste traditionnel en reprenant à la fois les arguments classiques de la scolastique qu'on retrouve entre autres dans les deux Sommes de Thomas d'Aquin. Mais également d'autres assez originaux de la philosophie analytique comme ceux de Joshua Rasmussen et de Robert Koons. Cette partie "identification" de l'Être nécessaire est assez détaillée : ce qui est agréable car cela change un peu des arguments trop expéditifs qu'on retrouve trop souvent ailleurs.

Dans la seconde grande partie, Flynn passe en revue d'autres données que les naturalistes et les théistes reconnaissent tout deux pour prouver qu'elles renforcent encore plus le théisme auquel on a abouti avec l'argument cosmologique donné précédemment. Ces données sont le réglage fin, la moralité, la conscience et le mal et la souffrance.

Il compare tout d’abord les deux visions du monde que sont le théisme et le naturalisme et montre en quoi la première a des meilleurs vertus théoriques que la seconde : pouvoir explicatif, simplicité, etc. en piochant chez divers philosophes comme Richard Swinburne. Il répond en détails notamment à l’objection courante selon laquelle le naturalisme est plus simple que le théisme car le premier affirme uniquement l’existence de choses sensibles sans avoir recours à une entité surnaturelle qu’est Dieu. En d’autres termes, le naturalisme est une théorie plus simple que le théisme car il pose l’existence de moins de types d’entités que ce dernier. C’est personnellement ma partie préféré et la plus utile contribution du livre (vulgariser un sujet peu vulgarisé).

Dans la partie consacrée au réglage fin, Flynn résume bien les différentes objections et les différentes réponses données par les meilleurs spécialistes dans l'état de l'art (Luke Barnes, Robin Collins, Michael Rota).

Dans la partie sur la morale, il s'attaque uniquement à la position évolutionniste sur la morale qui explique qu'elle n'est qu'un produit de l'évolution dépourvue de réalité objective (antiréalisme). Je comprends bien sûr que l'auteur respecte le programme qu'il s'est fixé au début (lutter uniquement contre le naturalisme). Mais ce faisant, il laisse sans réponses les arguments donnés par des athées non naturalistes comme Erik Wielenberg ou Jeffrey Jay Lowder qui se basent sur un platonisme athée, ce qui est dommage. On y trouve cependant un bon résumé accessible de la théorie de la loi naturelle qui définit le bien comme l’accomplissement des fins naturelles et le mal le fait d’y contrevenir.

Dans la partie dédiée à la conscience, il cherche à montrer que le naturalisme manque des ressources nécessaires pour expliquer l’existence d’êtres conscients que sont les êtres humains, contrairement au théisme qui reconnaît l’existence de choses qui dépassent les choses sensibles. Il se frotte particulièrement à la vision évolutionniste telle qu’elles est vulgarisée par Michael Ruse qui tente d’expliquer la conscience comme un fruit de l’évolution des espèces. Flynn à son habitude régurgite différents arguments assez variés : l’argument contemporain basé sur les qualia, l’argument de Richard Taylor (le besoin d’un esprit pour servir du fondement à la signification, sense en anglais), l’argument traditionnel basé sur la nature immatérielle des concepts et des universaux (tel qu’il est vulgarisé par Edward Feser) contre le nominalisme. Comme souvent, ce chapitre est le plus compliqué étant donné la complexité du sujet et de la philosophie de l’esprit. Mais on peut saluer la bonne vulgarisation offerte par l’auteur.

Dans le chapitre qui aborde le problème du mal (argument qui vise à réfuter l’existence de Dieu, ou au moins certains de ses attributs comme sa bonté ou sa toute puissance), Flynn combine plusieurs approches classiques : la défense par le libre-arbitre (Dieu permet le mal pour respecter le libre-arbitre des créatures), théodicée inspirée de saint Irénée de Lyon (la souffrance permet aux hommes de faire preuve de vertus positives : compassion, persévérance, etc.), la théorie du mal comme privation dans les sillons de Thomas d’Aquin et la défense par de plus grands biens lancée par saint Augustin (il utilise des éléments de la théologie chrétienne comme l’Incarnation et la vie éternelle, la communion avec Dieu). Il répond aux diverses formulations du problème : problème logique du mal, problème empirique du mal et le problème métaphysique du mal. Le dernier est original (je n’ai trouvé nul part ailleurs une telle expression), elle consiste à se demander comment un Dieu parfaitement bon peut créer le mal. Flynn conclut qu’au lieu d’infirmer le théisme, le mal et la souffrance s’expliquent beaucoup mieux si le théisme est vrai que si le naturalisme l’est. A nouveau, ce chapitre permet de bien s’informer sur le sujet même s’il n’entre pas beaucoup dans les détails.

Enfin, on trouve en annexe une liste de réponses succinctes à des objections qui portent principalement sur son argument cosmologique. Par exemple, “Qui a causé Dieu ?”, “Si Dieu est acte pur, comment peut-il créer sans passer de la puissance à l’acte ?”, etc.

[Tim · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent book. Must read. Will give to my friends. I reread it a second time (gotta make the most of the library check out while I have it). It fills me with warmth to know that I’m not the only one out there thinking these thoughts; reading old books and understanding the real irrationality of chronological snobbery. I lack the articulation of the author, but I can say with reasonable confidence that his understanding of reality is in line with my own. There is a real concrete reality. It’s not all naturalism and relativism. I love this book.

[Jacob O'connor · Rating 4 out of 5]

The best argument for God? Maybe, but I'll certainly say it's a good one. More than anyone I can name in the moment, Flynn excels at taking the hard stuff and putting it within reach. This was not as difficult a read as it could have been. Yet it's sophisticated enough to demand a response. I can see myself referring back to this one.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's taken me a while to read this: the way philosophy uses certain words with a rather different meaning to their everyday meaning took a bit of getting used to, and some of the arguments I had to read more than once to make sense of.
I'm not entirely sure that Flynn 'wins' his case, but he puts a lot of effort into what he says. And certainly 'naturalism' appears to come off second best in philosophical terms.
Worth reading, though occasionally repetitive.

[Skylar Overby · Rating 3 out of 5]

A decent summary of the traditional philosophical arguments for the existence of God, combined with more modern arguments of worldview comparison.

Read if you want a brief high level view of the theistic arguments against naturalism.

[Tim Donnelly · Rating 3 out of 5]

I appreciated Flynn’s accessible approach to dense classical theistic arguments. This made the book more readable than many on the topic. He draws heavily from respected contemporary philosophers, offering a helpful overview rather than presenting many original ideas of his own.

Unfortunately, the book felt uneven; the beginning and end were sort of solid, but the middle dragged and lost my interest. Some arguments came off as both rushed and at other times repetitive, likely due to the sheer scope Flynn tries to cover in a limited space. Overall, it’s a decent read, but not without its flaws.

Edit: just finished Rasmussen’s How Reason Can Lead to God and I think I would take that book over this one if you’re looking for a concise philosophical argument for theism.

[John Martindale · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought this was well-written and engaging. I am drawn to the initial argument that leads to a non-contingent necessary ground of all being. However, Flynn reasons from this to divine simplicity, immutability, impassiveness, and timelessness. Do these necessarily follow from the first argument?
Flynn is also a Christian, and to me, this classical understanding of God is the absolute antithesis of the God that is presented in Hebrew scriptures. I would think this ground of all being would work better in an Eastern context. The Bible conveys a divine being with personal elements, and again simplicity, impassiveness, timelessness, and immutability would in my mind necessarily entail a non-personal being--a being that cannot be personal--as this would convey sequence.
I know Flynn feels he addressed objections at the end of his book, but I still am taken by what he calls the "modal collapse". If there can literally be no sequence for God, then everything that is happening (my writing this review) has happened and is a fixed, unchanging static reality, frozen in God's eternal now--God is limited and cannot even be aware of the sequence or know what it is like to experience sequence. It all just IS. I am co-eternal with God. I have always existed, everything I do has always existed, yet I also, at the same time, do not exist, as the moments before my existence are fixed as well in an unchanging blah. If somehow this timeless and immutable God can act (which seems absurd to me), these events are fixed too; they've always existed and couldn't be otherwise. God could never think a thought, say a word, create a thing, or do anything because that would convey sequence. There could never be a moment before a choice; the "choices" God made were never chosen, they simply eternally ARE. Whatever God "does" in our own timeline is also fixed and could not have happened otherwise; it just is and always is. So, fatalism would be true for God. It also leads to seeming contradictions, eternally and always, Jesus is a human, he is dead, and resurrected with a new body. If Jesus went to hell, Jesus has always been in hell, fixed and forever. Jesus on earth, in hell, and in heaven are all eternally fixed and unchanging realities. Jesus is both a baby and an adult, on earth and in heaven, forever, without change. God both remembers our sins and has cast our sins as far as the East is from the West, all at the same time. In God's unchanging experience, the non-existence of the universe is as fixed a reality as the universe that came about ex nihilo. It's all just so absurd!
Anyhow, I really do not think it makes sense that we humans can experience sequence as we do, and believe that God somehow acts within our world, and yet believe at the same time that sequence really does not exist. If timelessness and immutability are true, I do not think it is rational to claim that we are free in any meaningful sense of the world. If we could not have done otherwise, then determinism is true.