What do you think?
Rate this book
Point/Counterpoint
God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist
The question of whether or not God exists is profoundly fascinating and important. Now two articulate spokesmen--one a Christian, the other an atheist--duel over God's existence in an illuminating battle of ideas. In God? A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist, William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong bring to the printed page two debates they held before live audiences, preserving all the wit, clarity, and immediacy of their public exchanges. Avoiding overly esoteric arguments, they directly address issues such as religious experience, the Bible, evil, eternity, the origin of the universe, design, and the supposed connection between morality and the existence of God. Employing sharp and humorous arguments, each philosopher strikes quickly to the heart of his opponent's case. For example, Craig claims that we must believe in God in order to explain objective moral values, such as why rape is wrong. Sinnott-Armstrong responds that what makes rape wrong is the harm to victims of rape, so rape is immoral even if there is no God. By assuming a traditional concept of God in their discussion, the authors ensure that they are truly addressing each other's viewpoints and engaging in a disagreement over a unified issue. The book is composed of six chapters that alternate between Craig and Sinnott-Armstrong, so that each separate point can be discussed as it arises. Ideal for courses in the philosophy of religion and introduction to philosophy, this lively and direct dialogue will stimulate students and anyone interested in the existence of God, regardless of whether or not they believe in God.
170 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2003
14 people are currently reading
567 people want to read
About the author
William Lane Craig
136 books845 followersWilliam Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. He and his wife Jan have two grown children.
At the age of sixteen as a junior in high school, he first heard the message of the Christian gospel and yielded his life to Christ. Dr. Craig pursued his undergraduate studies at Wheaton College (B.A. 1971) and graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (M.A. 1974; M.A. 1975), the University of Birmingham (England) (Ph.D. 1977), and the University of Munich (Germany) (D.Theol. 1984). From 1980-86 he taught Philosophy of Religion at Trinity, during which time he and Jan started their family. In 1987 they moved to Brussels, Belgium, where Dr. Craig pursued research at the University of Louvain until assuming his position at Talbot in 1994.
He has authored or edited over thirty books, including The Kalam Cosmological Argument; Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus; Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom; Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology; and God, Time and Eternity, as well as over a hundred articles in professional journals of philosophy and theology, including The Journal of Philosophy, New Testament Studies, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, American Philosophical Quarterly, Philosophical Studies, Philosophy, and British Journal for Philosophy of Science.
At the age of sixteen as a junior in high school, he first heard the message of the Christian gospel and yielded his life to Christ. Dr. Craig pursued his undergraduate studies at Wheaton College (B.A. 1971) and graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (M.A. 1974; M.A. 1975), the University of Birmingham (England) (Ph.D. 1977), and the University of Munich (Germany) (D.Theol. 1984). From 1980-86 he taught Philosophy of Religion at Trinity, during which time he and Jan started their family. In 1987 they moved to Brussels, Belgium, where Dr. Craig pursued research at the University of Louvain until assuming his position at Talbot in 1994.
He has authored or edited over thirty books, including The Kalam Cosmological Argument; Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus; Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom; Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology; and God, Time and Eternity, as well as over a hundred articles in professional journals of philosophy and theology, including The Journal of Philosophy, New Testament Studies, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, American Philosophical Quarterly, Philosophical Studies, Philosophy, and British Journal for Philosophy of Science.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
March 27, 2021
Let’s lock these two in a room, throw in their pals Ken Hamm, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris and just let ‘em hash it out.
December 30, 2010
If you're looking for a genuinely intelligent, rational discourse over this topic--go elsewhere. The arguments presented on both sides are either weak or whitewashed. For example, and not to say this takes away its validity, William Lane Craig's arguments for the existence of God are the exact same as the material you'll see published by him in Reasonable Faith, God Is Great, and his many debates, lectures, and so on. However, the presentation of said arguments in this small book are reduced and simplified, so if you're looking for Craig at his best, read something heavier like Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Now, on the other side, Armstrong is highly disappointing as a philosopher, and I say this as a non-Christian myself. He makes arbitrary assertions that make claims such as the existence of objective morality, without giving a proper explanation as to how they do without a Necessary Being. Both men argue and use speech as if this is an old west gun fight, with plenty of explanation marks and italics to tag along.
September 8, 2019
This book is exactly what it makes itself to be, in that it is a debate, and thus has the benefits and drawbacks of a debate.
The two authors present their arguments and their respective rebuttals in a well-presented manner, generally refraining from demeaning the other.
The drawback is that, like in a debate, each and every point made by one isn't rebutted by other specifically, thus the reader is left without an answer to some objections and arguments. Another drawback is that, like a debate again, points are made without simplifying the concepts for the readers (audience) which makes it difficult for them to understand and follow the argument completely.
Overall, the debate is very insightful and enlightening for readers interested in the arguments made by theists and atheists for their respective views.
The two authors present their arguments and their respective rebuttals in a well-presented manner, generally refraining from demeaning the other.
The drawback is that, like in a debate, each and every point made by one isn't rebutted by other specifically, thus the reader is left without an answer to some objections and arguments. Another drawback is that, like a debate again, points are made without simplifying the concepts for the readers (audience) which makes it difficult for them to understand and follow the argument completely.
Overall, the debate is very insightful and enlightening for readers interested in the arguments made by theists and atheists for their respective views.
January 21, 2016
Prof , Dr , William wins the debate by Defeating atheism- worth watch debate
Thank you sir william
Thank you sir william
April 15, 2021
Not worth the energy. There are many more engaging and capable atheists. WLC’s arguments were almost worth skimming, but that’s it.
August 5, 2013
"Craig:
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 biblical account of Jesus' resurrection.
5 - God can be immediately known and experienced.
Infinity is simply an idea and nothing can exist for infinity. Atheists argue that the universe has always existed.
[Red herring. This is an outdated representation of an atheistic argument. Current arguments keep up with changes in scientific knowledge.] <--- my own comments are in brackets.
The universe's existence must have had a cause. The cause must be uncaused, changeless, timeless, immaterial being and personal.
[If we are to accept that the first cause is causeless why do we have to assume that it is also:
changeless (what does it mean for a cause to be changeless, anyway?)
immaterial being (the first cause does not have to be a being. It could have been anything. Perhaps the collapse of the previous universe.)
personal (why personal? If the being is personal, does this also assume intelligence? If so, we have a lot more explaining to do on where this personal being came from.)]
Quantum Theory does not allow for the big bang to be uncaused.
[Our understanding of quantum mechanics is far from complete. Especially in the moments during the big bang. Any arguments invoking quantum theory begs the question:
Does this philosopher or anyone else for that matter know what he is talking about? ]
God does not have a cause because only things that begin to exist need a cause. God always existed.
[He has already argued against something existing infinitely. He cannot have it both ways.]
Discusses fine tuned physics constants such as the strength of gravity, strong force and weak force as well as ""50 others"". Dismisses scientific theories on these constants as an unknown unifying reason for these constants or that it was all just chance.
[In reality there are at least 3 theories explaining the apparently fine tuned physics constants. 1 - The universe is infinitely expanding and collapsing and re-birthing with new constants each time. After an infinite number of times it is impossible to not get the formulas just right on some of the occasions. 2 - There are an infinite number of universes in parallel to each other with varying constants in each one. With an infinite number of universes it is impossible to not get the formula just right on some of them. 3 - We look at the constants on paper and think that those numbers could have been anything. But there are constraints that keep them where they are at with out the possibility of them being outside of the ""livable zone"".]
The designer does not need to be explained because if we had to explain the explanation, it would infinitely regress into explanations of explanations. Furthermore, the immaterial mind is very simple compared to the universe. It is not made of brain parts but is a metaphysical or spiritual entity and is therefore simple.
Argues that god must exist because objective moral values exist.
[He does not explain why he thinks objective moral values exist other than we all know deep down inside what is right and wrong. However, The sense of right and wrong changes from culture to culture and generation to generation. 100 years ago, it was okay to beat your child with a stick. In Jesus’ time it was not considered wrong to own a slave. In the Old Testament during Lot's time it was okay to rape a woman. These are moral values that are not objective; they are subjective to the culture.]
Biblical scholars agree that Jesus died, was buried, his tomb was later found empty and that people reported seeing him alive after his death.
[This requires the ridiculous assumption that the biblical record is verified to be correct even though it has gone through a millennia of translations and copies apparently free of religious bias.]
God can be immediately experienced and known.
[The Old Testament story of Samuel hearing God's voice but misinterpreting it as Eli's voice from the other room demonstrates that personal revelation is subject to interpretation and can be misunderstood.]
Sinnot-Armstrong:
The cause of the big bang is not necessarily all-knowing, all-powerful, benevolent.
Agrees that there is an objective moral truth. Offers many explanations of how morality could be with out god but in the end does not commit to any of them with, ""it just is immoral"".
Quotes Plato, ""Is rape immoral because God commanded us not to rape or did God command us not to rape because it is immoral"".
[There needs to be some demonstration of why there is objective moral truth and not relative cultural morality. However, this is never given.]
Argues that reports of Jesus’ resurrection were written decades after the fact. Identifies other reasons to doubt New Testament miracles.
Religious experiences occur to people of all religions which result in contradictory beliefs.
On quantum theory as evidence for god causing the big bang: When so little is known, this is a very shaky foundation for any argument. To cite God as the cause of the big bang is to explain the obscure by the more obscure, which gets us nowhere.
It is simpler to assume that there are multiple universes (and multiple big bangs) with various physics constants than to assume that god is behind it all. Multiple big bangs requires more of the same elements whereas a creator theory requires a new element, god.
[Couldn't agree more. How can anyone invoke Occum's Razor and argue that god is 'simpler' than other scientific explanations? An all powerful god with rational thought and omniscient decision making skills is simple? ]
Even if the cosmological argument for god was true, it would not show the existence of god with all of his traditional features. In particular, even if some commander did dictate morality, that commander still might not be good or have the power to punish disobedience by humans. Even if Jesus did rise from the dead, maybe he was abducted by aliens or maybe raising Jesus tired out god , so god lost his power. Even if religious experiences were evidence for some external source, the most vivid religious experience could result from a god who is only very strong and pretty good. Even if some creator or designer could be proven, this creator or designer might have died a long time ago. Indeed, if god designed this universe, there is much reason to doubt that he is all-good.
[It is lazy thinking when we encounter the unexplained to thoughtlessly conclude that it must be from god.]
[Amazingly, theology about god is so confidently detailed. Christians profess to know all sorts of unsubstantiated details about god. A logical thinker asks, how do you know that god demands a 10% tithe? or that he personally loves each of us (especially the inhabitants of ancient Jericho)? or that he is a he? or that he looks human? or that he did not use evolution to provide homo habilis parents to Adam and Eve?]
PART TWO
Sinnot-Armstrong:
There cannot be an all-powerful and all-good god because evil exists in the world. Either god cannot stop all of the evil or he does not care to. In any case, he is either not all-powerful or not all-good.
[While this is a strong argument, I don't think it is sufficient. This can be explained away with 'God's ways are not our ways' and 'life is but an instant compared to eternity'.]
If god is timeless therefore he cannot act within time.
There is no evidence for god. Charles Schultz's cartoon 'peanuts' shows Linus believing in the Great Pumpkin even though there is no evidence of it's existence. Is believing in god any different? (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grea...)
[This is my strongest reason. There is no good reason to believe in god. All things do not testify that there is a Christ. To think so is an extreme case of confirmation bias. It looks at the world with blinders on by seeing only the good and seemingly designed attributes of nature. It ignores the evil in the world and Darwinian explanation of nature. ]
Craig:
By arguing that there is no evidence, Sinnot-Armstrong is actually arguing for agnosticism rather than atheism. We should not expect any evidence of god so it is okay that we don't find any.
[There is no reason to expect evidence of an all-powerful, all-good god who is confronted with a world of evil?]
Sinnot-Armstrong:
Craig starts with many assumptions that are not substantiated. 'Once we reflect on God's providence', 'The purpose of life is knowing God', 'God's purpose spills over into eternal life'.
[You could also add: The biblical resurrection story is correct, God is interested in building a love relationship with you, God's existence is revealed through his handiwork in nature. Moral law is written on the hearts of all persons.]"
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 biblical account of Jesus' resurrection.
5 - God can be immediately known and experienced.
Infinity is simply an idea and nothing can exist for infinity. Atheists argue that the universe has always existed.
[Red herring. This is an outdated representation of an atheistic argument. Current arguments keep up with changes in scientific knowledge.] <--- my own comments are in brackets.
The universe's existence must have had a cause. The cause must be uncaused, changeless, timeless, immaterial being and personal.
[If we are to accept that the first cause is causeless why do we have to assume that it is also:
changeless (what does it mean for a cause to be changeless, anyway?)
immaterial being (the first cause does not have to be a being. It could have been anything. Perhaps the collapse of the previous universe.)
personal (why personal? If the being is personal, does this also assume intelligence? If so, we have a lot more explaining to do on where this personal being came from.)]
Quantum Theory does not allow for the big bang to be uncaused.
[Our understanding of quantum mechanics is far from complete. Especially in the moments during the big bang. Any arguments invoking quantum theory begs the question:
Does this philosopher or anyone else for that matter know what he is talking about? ]
God does not have a cause because only things that begin to exist need a cause. God always existed.
[He has already argued against something existing infinitely. He cannot have it both ways.]
Discusses fine tuned physics constants such as the strength of gravity, strong force and weak force as well as ""50 others"". Dismisses scientific theories on these constants as an unknown unifying reason for these constants or that it was all just chance.
[In reality there are at least 3 theories explaining the apparently fine tuned physics constants. 1 - The universe is infinitely expanding and collapsing and re-birthing with new constants each time. After an infinite number of times it is impossible to not get the formulas just right on some of the occasions. 2 - There are an infinite number of universes in parallel to each other with varying constants in each one. With an infinite number of universes it is impossible to not get the formula just right on some of them. 3 - We look at the constants on paper and think that those numbers could have been anything. But there are constraints that keep them where they are at with out the possibility of them being outside of the ""livable zone"".]
The designer does not need to be explained because if we had to explain the explanation, it would infinitely regress into explanations of explanations. Furthermore, the immaterial mind is very simple compared to the universe. It is not made of brain parts but is a metaphysical or spiritual entity and is therefore simple.
Argues that god must exist because objective moral values exist.
[He does not explain why he thinks objective moral values exist other than we all know deep down inside what is right and wrong. However, The sense of right and wrong changes from culture to culture and generation to generation. 100 years ago, it was okay to beat your child with a stick. In Jesus’ time it was not considered wrong to own a slave. In the Old Testament during Lot's time it was okay to rape a woman. These are moral values that are not objective; they are subjective to the culture.]
Biblical scholars agree that Jesus died, was buried, his tomb was later found empty and that people reported seeing him alive after his death.
[This requires the ridiculous assumption that the biblical record is verified to be correct even though it has gone through a millennia of translations and copies apparently free of religious bias.]
God can be immediately experienced and known.
[The Old Testament story of Samuel hearing God's voice but misinterpreting it as Eli's voice from the other room demonstrates that personal revelation is subject to interpretation and can be misunderstood.]
Sinnot-Armstrong:
The cause of the big bang is not necessarily all-knowing, all-powerful, benevolent.
Agrees that there is an objective moral truth. Offers many explanations of how morality could be with out god but in the end does not commit to any of them with, ""it just is immoral"".
Quotes Plato, ""Is rape immoral because God commanded us not to rape or did God command us not to rape because it is immoral"".
[There needs to be some demonstration of why there is objective moral truth and not relative cultural morality. However, this is never given.]
Argues that reports of Jesus’ resurrection were written decades after the fact. Identifies other reasons to doubt New Testament miracles.
Religious experiences occur to people of all religions which result in contradictory beliefs.
On quantum theory as evidence for god causing the big bang: When so little is known, this is a very shaky foundation for any argument. To cite God as the cause of the big bang is to explain the obscure by the more obscure, which gets us nowhere.
It is simpler to assume that there are multiple universes (and multiple big bangs) with various physics constants than to assume that god is behind it all. Multiple big bangs requires more of the same elements whereas a creator theory requires a new element, god.
[Couldn't agree more. How can anyone invoke Occum's Razor and argue that god is 'simpler' than other scientific explanations? An all powerful god with rational thought and omniscient decision making skills is simple? ]
Even if the cosmological argument for god was true, it would not show the existence of god with all of his traditional features. In particular, even if some commander did dictate morality, that commander still might not be good or have the power to punish disobedience by humans. Even if Jesus did rise from the dead, maybe he was abducted by aliens or maybe raising Jesus tired out god , so god lost his power. Even if religious experiences were evidence for some external source, the most vivid religious experience could result from a god who is only very strong and pretty good. Even if some creator or designer could be proven, this creator or designer might have died a long time ago. Indeed, if god designed this universe, there is much reason to doubt that he is all-good.
[It is lazy thinking when we encounter the unexplained to thoughtlessly conclude that it must be from god.]
[Amazingly, theology about god is so confidently detailed. Christians profess to know all sorts of unsubstantiated details about god. A logical thinker asks, how do you know that god demands a 10% tithe? or that he personally loves each of us (especially the inhabitants of ancient Jericho)? or that he is a he? or that he looks human? or that he did not use evolution to provide homo habilis parents to Adam and Eve?]
PART TWO
Sinnot-Armstrong:
There cannot be an all-powerful and all-good god because evil exists in the world. Either god cannot stop all of the evil or he does not care to. In any case, he is either not all-powerful or not all-good.
[While this is a strong argument, I don't think it is sufficient. This can be explained away with 'God's ways are not our ways' and 'life is but an instant compared to eternity'.]
If god is timeless therefore he cannot act within time.
There is no evidence for god. Charles Schultz's cartoon 'peanuts' shows Linus believing in the Great Pumpkin even though there is no evidence of it's existence. Is believing in god any different? (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grea...)
[This is my strongest reason. There is no good reason to believe in god. All things do not testify that there is a Christ. To think so is an extreme case of confirmation bias. It looks at the world with blinders on by seeing only the good and seemingly designed attributes of nature. It ignores the evil in the world and Darwinian explanation of nature. ]
Craig:
By arguing that there is no evidence, Sinnot-Armstrong is actually arguing for agnosticism rather than atheism. We should not expect any evidence of god so it is okay that we don't find any.
[There is no reason to expect evidence of an all-powerful, all-good god who is confronted with a world of evil?]
Sinnot-Armstrong:
Craig starts with many assumptions that are not substantiated. 'Once we reflect on God's providence', 'The purpose of life is knowing God', 'God's purpose spills over into eternal life'.
[You could also add: The biblical resurrection story is correct, God is interested in building a love relationship with you, God's existence is revealed through his handiwork in nature. Moral law is written on the hearts of all persons.]"
November 21, 2016
As usual, Dr. Craig lays out good arguments, though goes into many of these points in greater detail elsewhere. Dr. Sinnott-Armstrong, on the other hand, employed many fallacies and made his half of the book somewhat lackluster. As such, this is more of a one-sided debate.
October 14, 2013
coool swag
November 26, 2024
I enjoyed this book less on the second reading than the first, although it's still a good read. I much prefer debates in written format, as there tends to be more engagement. I wish there were more available.
There was a good amount of back-and-forth here. The tone is quite confrontational, which I like. I felt at times that they were writing past each other, and that they were doing points-scoring rather than arguing.
There was a good amount of back-and-forth here. The tone is quite confrontational, which I like. I felt at times that they were writing past each other, and that they were doing points-scoring rather than arguing.
August 12, 2024
AN EXCELLENT WRITTEN DEBATE, FOLLOWING TWO ORAL DEBATES
William Lane Craig (born 1949) is a Christian apologist formerly associated with Campus Crusade for Christ; he currently holds the position of research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. He has written many books, such as 'God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist,' 'Hard Questions, Real Answers,' etc. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong is professor of Legal Studies at Dartmouth College, and has written books such as 'Moral Skepticisms,' 'Morality Without God?,' etc.
This book arose out of two live debates held between Craig and Sinnott-Armstrong in 1999 and 2000; their opening remarks were largely expanded into chapters of this book, and then they added chapters, comments on each other's chapters, etc.
Craig asserts early on, "as the cause of space and time, this supernatural cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless... because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical." (Pg. 5) Later, he adds, "as a metaphysical hypothesis, the Many Worlds Hypothesis is arguably inferior to the design hypothesis, because the design hypothesis is SIMPLER... it is simpler to postulate one Cosmic Designer to explain our universe than to postulate the infinitely bloated collection of universes required by the Many Worlds Hypothesis." (Pg. 13) He also adds, "the design hypothesis's being the best explanation of the fine-tuning doesn't depend on our being able to explain the Designer." (Pg. 16)
Sinnott-Armstrong argues, "Many people's views on infinity do lead to outright contradictions. Even some mathematicians bungle it and end up claiming that actual infinities are impossible. Craig quotes David Hilbert... but Craig's appeal takes an authority out of context... Hilbert himself soon recognized that his finitist project was undermined by Gödel's incompleteness theorems in 1931. More importantly... almost all mathematicians today recognize that infinity can be handled without contradiction." (Pg. 42)
Craig deals with the Problem of Evil: "The Christian is committed to the truth that suffering exists, but not that gratuitous suffering exists... Everybody admits that the world is filled with APPARENTLY gratuitous suffering. We are often unable to see any reason for why harm befalls us. But that doesn't imply that these apparently gratuitous evils really ARE gratuitous." (Pg. 114)
This is one of the better Christian/Atheist debates in print (not being a transcript of a "live" debate helps, I think), and will be of considerable value to anyone interested in Christian apologetics, or the philosophy of religion.
William Lane Craig (born 1949) is a Christian apologist formerly associated with Campus Crusade for Christ; he currently holds the position of research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. He has written many books, such as 'God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist,' 'Hard Questions, Real Answers,' etc. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong is professor of Legal Studies at Dartmouth College, and has written books such as 'Moral Skepticisms,' 'Morality Without God?,' etc.
This book arose out of two live debates held between Craig and Sinnott-Armstrong in 1999 and 2000; their opening remarks were largely expanded into chapters of this book, and then they added chapters, comments on each other's chapters, etc.
Craig asserts early on, "as the cause of space and time, this supernatural cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless... because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical." (Pg. 5) Later, he adds, "as a metaphysical hypothesis, the Many Worlds Hypothesis is arguably inferior to the design hypothesis, because the design hypothesis is SIMPLER... it is simpler to postulate one Cosmic Designer to explain our universe than to postulate the infinitely bloated collection of universes required by the Many Worlds Hypothesis." (Pg. 13) He also adds, "the design hypothesis's being the best explanation of the fine-tuning doesn't depend on our being able to explain the Designer." (Pg. 16)
Sinnott-Armstrong argues, "Many people's views on infinity do lead to outright contradictions. Even some mathematicians bungle it and end up claiming that actual infinities are impossible. Craig quotes David Hilbert... but Craig's appeal takes an authority out of context... Hilbert himself soon recognized that his finitist project was undermined by Gödel's incompleteness theorems in 1931. More importantly... almost all mathematicians today recognize that infinity can be handled without contradiction." (Pg. 42)
Craig deals with the Problem of Evil: "The Christian is committed to the truth that suffering exists, but not that gratuitous suffering exists... Everybody admits that the world is filled with APPARENTLY gratuitous suffering. We are often unable to see any reason for why harm befalls us. But that doesn't imply that these apparently gratuitous evils really ARE gratuitous." (Pg. 114)
This is one of the better Christian/Atheist debates in print (not being a transcript of a "live" debate helps, I think), and will be of considerable value to anyone interested in Christian apologetics, or the philosophy of religion.
September 19, 2019
Craig is the clear victor. Sinnott-Armstrong's points are weak, and he rambles. At times it feels like he's struggling to fill up his space.
December 13, 2020
Many of the arguments here already written in other books by the same author. The arguments was good, though not in that detailed.
February 3, 2022
Throughout my formative years, I spent countless hours binging videos of people like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins "OWNING" creationists. While I'm far past my teenage edgelord phase, I thought I'd revisit the terms of the "God" debate itself in much better faith - pun unintended - in "God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist."
Both William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong demonstrate expertise in their field in easily understandable ways. It shows in their discussions on the origin of the universe, the "state" of the universe, and the parameters around what God entails. Even though some of the scientific details are get technical and arguably are a bit dated due to the book's 1999 release, they are such a breath of fresh air from the standard "Flying Spaghetti" and "how can you believe in nothing" arguments often brought up by people who haven't engaged with source material on this topic. The few moments where the two authors take fun jabs at each other add a lot of life to the otherwise potentially dry discussion. Reading it, you can imagine two old philosophers standing across from each other like debaters in the Roman Republic, preaching, gesturing and performing to an audience. My only complaints would be that the specifics of Jesus' resurrection and the debates over the validity of anecdotal documentation of Gods' existence were much less interesting topics. Here, Craig and Sinnott-Armstrong waste a lot of time debating the usefulness of different sources rather than really engaging in each other's conclusions.
The debate on objective morality existing with or without a God was by far the most interesting part of the book, if only because it had given me a foundation to critically evaluate both sides. I was stunned to see that Sinnott-Armstrong, an atheist, somehow believes in objective morality. Disappointingly, in a chapter where he has to make the proactive case for atheism, Sinnott-Armstrong shies away from explaining why moral values existing in an godless abstract is any more convincing than a belief in a designer creating and upholding them. Instead, he tries to put Craig on defense, asking him to explain why the Problem of Evil applies to theists who believe in objective morality less than the Problem of Accountability applies to atheists who believe in objective morality. I have to admit, as an atheist who doesn't believe in objective morality, but was initially intrigued by Sinnott-Armstrong's position, I thought this was a really poor attempt at a "gotcha." The presence of evil itself under a supposedly all-powerful and all-good god doesn't necessarily prove atheism; it might show that our idea of morality without God is limited to our material experiences.
As expected, Craig nails him here, but amazingly, Craig takes the bait for the Problem of Evil and offers an answer that gets him roasted in Sinnott-Armstrong's last chapter. Putting it broadly, Craig's answer to the Problem of Evil isn't quite Divine Command Theory, but it's basically the same thing with an element of "God works in mysterious ways." Craig brings up the concepts like eternity, heaven, and hell in order contextualize suffering in a way that is supposedly incomprehensible for most humans beings to understand as good or bad...except for Craig and the theists, I guess? I was surprised to see he gave Sinnott-Armstrong an opening here, if only because I really did think there wasn't any need to address it within the context of that chapter.
"God?" was a joy to read, and although I can't quite say who won, I can say that reading the book gave me a much better starting and neutral framework for the titular discussion. If you like this topic, but aren't an expert or anywhere near competent on it, this is a must-read.
Both William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong demonstrate expertise in their field in easily understandable ways. It shows in their discussions on the origin of the universe, the "state" of the universe, and the parameters around what God entails. Even though some of the scientific details are get technical and arguably are a bit dated due to the book's 1999 release, they are such a breath of fresh air from the standard "Flying Spaghetti" and "how can you believe in nothing" arguments often brought up by people who haven't engaged with source material on this topic. The few moments where the two authors take fun jabs at each other add a lot of life to the otherwise potentially dry discussion. Reading it, you can imagine two old philosophers standing across from each other like debaters in the Roman Republic, preaching, gesturing and performing to an audience. My only complaints would be that the specifics of Jesus' resurrection and the debates over the validity of anecdotal documentation of Gods' existence were much less interesting topics. Here, Craig and Sinnott-Armstrong waste a lot of time debating the usefulness of different sources rather than really engaging in each other's conclusions.
The debate on objective morality existing with or without a God was by far the most interesting part of the book, if only because it had given me a foundation to critically evaluate both sides. I was stunned to see that Sinnott-Armstrong, an atheist, somehow believes in objective morality. Disappointingly, in a chapter where he has to make the proactive case for atheism, Sinnott-Armstrong shies away from explaining why moral values existing in an godless abstract is any more convincing than a belief in a designer creating and upholding them. Instead, he tries to put Craig on defense, asking him to explain why the Problem of Evil applies to theists who believe in objective morality less than the Problem of Accountability applies to atheists who believe in objective morality. I have to admit, as an atheist who doesn't believe in objective morality, but was initially intrigued by Sinnott-Armstrong's position, I thought this was a really poor attempt at a "gotcha." The presence of evil itself under a supposedly all-powerful and all-good god doesn't necessarily prove atheism; it might show that our idea of morality without God is limited to our material experiences.
As expected, Craig nails him here, but amazingly, Craig takes the bait for the Problem of Evil and offers an answer that gets him roasted in Sinnott-Armstrong's last chapter. Putting it broadly, Craig's answer to the Problem of Evil isn't quite Divine Command Theory, but it's basically the same thing with an element of "God works in mysterious ways." Craig brings up the concepts like eternity, heaven, and hell in order contextualize suffering in a way that is supposedly incomprehensible for most humans beings to understand as good or bad...except for Craig and the theists, I guess? I was surprised to see he gave Sinnott-Armstrong an opening here, if only because I really did think there wasn't any need to address it within the context of that chapter.
"God?" was a joy to read, and although I can't quite say who won, I can say that reading the book gave me a much better starting and neutral framework for the titular discussion. If you like this topic, but aren't an expert or anywhere near competent on it, this is a must-read.
December 21, 2015
I cannot imagine that too many people are swayed, one way or another, after reading these types of books. I am sure that virtually all of those who are atheist going in are the same coming out, and same with the theists. So I went in believing in God, and came out the same; no shocker there, I am sure I am not the intended audience.
Books like these can be frustrating. Both authors leave gaps, questions I want answered, and the result is always so unsatisfying. I think what I really want is to sit down and have coffee with these two gents and have a conversation, as opposed to a structured debate that inevitably leaves more ground uncovered than otherwise.
I like William Lane Craig, a lot. I have read his material before, listened to some of his recorded debates and am generally impressed at the way he attacks what atheists consider to be a given, namely the idea that the theist approach can never be the intellectual approach. He's obviously done his research, amassed a lot of data and spent countless hours in preparation for the presentation of an organized defense of his faith. Having said that, I often feel that when his points are rebutted, his response is to do little more than restate his initial points, with some of the commas in alternate locations. In short, he is always on message and it can feel mechanical; I'd love to see him take it down a notch, below the PhD level, and talk more to common folk, but again, that just isn't his mission. He wants to talk to atheists on level academic footing and I admire him for doing so.
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, who presented the atheist position, is a likable guy as well. He injects some humor and isn't afraid to just claim common sense for some of his stances, which I admire, I just don't know how well that works when you are trying to portray your opponent as someone who ignores facts. He makes some good points, but honestly, I kind of wish he'd make some of his arguments to my atheist friends, it really might help bring people to Christ. My favorite: just because you have triplets doesn't mean the number three made you do it! (that was not a direct quote in any way, I will admit it was a sarcastic wise crack based loosely on one of his arguments, it just made me giggle!) All in all though, he presented a rational argument and gave food for thought, but its like I said, I don't think either of these two converted anybody who took more than a loose foundation into the discussion.
Books like these make me crave a much more organic approach to faith. I don't have a lot of footnotes to reference, I just know some simple internal truths that have resonated throughout my life. For example, when I am terrified, I pray and feel comforted. Why an atheist would seek to deny me this is beyond me. When I ask my atheist friends what the harm is in being a Christian, most often they cite the political foibles of the religious right. They can never seem to fathom that there are Christians out there who are against attempting to legislate a narrow interpretation of the Bible's morality. My faith leads me to see myself as a servant to my wife and children, to think of others as better than myself and to strive to meet confrontation with compassion; how does that make me the enemy?
Books like these can be frustrating. Both authors leave gaps, questions I want answered, and the result is always so unsatisfying. I think what I really want is to sit down and have coffee with these two gents and have a conversation, as opposed to a structured debate that inevitably leaves more ground uncovered than otherwise.
I like William Lane Craig, a lot. I have read his material before, listened to some of his recorded debates and am generally impressed at the way he attacks what atheists consider to be a given, namely the idea that the theist approach can never be the intellectual approach. He's obviously done his research, amassed a lot of data and spent countless hours in preparation for the presentation of an organized defense of his faith. Having said that, I often feel that when his points are rebutted, his response is to do little more than restate his initial points, with some of the commas in alternate locations. In short, he is always on message and it can feel mechanical; I'd love to see him take it down a notch, below the PhD level, and talk more to common folk, but again, that just isn't his mission. He wants to talk to atheists on level academic footing and I admire him for doing so.
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, who presented the atheist position, is a likable guy as well. He injects some humor and isn't afraid to just claim common sense for some of his stances, which I admire, I just don't know how well that works when you are trying to portray your opponent as someone who ignores facts. He makes some good points, but honestly, I kind of wish he'd make some of his arguments to my atheist friends, it really might help bring people to Christ. My favorite: just because you have triplets doesn't mean the number three made you do it! (that was not a direct quote in any way, I will admit it was a sarcastic wise crack based loosely on one of his arguments, it just made me giggle!) All in all though, he presented a rational argument and gave food for thought, but its like I said, I don't think either of these two converted anybody who took more than a loose foundation into the discussion.
Books like these make me crave a much more organic approach to faith. I don't have a lot of footnotes to reference, I just know some simple internal truths that have resonated throughout my life. For example, when I am terrified, I pray and feel comforted. Why an atheist would seek to deny me this is beyond me. When I ask my atheist friends what the harm is in being a Christian, most often they cite the political foibles of the religious right. They can never seem to fathom that there are Christians out there who are against attempting to legislate a narrow interpretation of the Bible's morality. My faith leads me to see myself as a servant to my wife and children, to think of others as better than myself and to strive to meet confrontation with compassion; how does that make me the enemy?
March 4, 2013
Here are just some quick thoughts.
This book is easy to understand and gives you a good grasp of the strengths and weaknesses of each side of the argument from two very competent philosophers. I thought Sinnott-Armstrong's arguments from evil and the hiddenness of God were his most powerful arguments, but I don't think he responded to the moral argument or resurrection argument adequately. He brought up a good point about Craig's arguments, that they don't lead to a God with all the attributes they were attributing to Him. Craig responded that all the arguments put together do, and the resurrection alone would be enough to establish it, but it does make me think that if even one of the arguments fails, then the being he argued for doesn't quite match the description of the God he believes in. Again, recommended.
This book is easy to understand and gives you a good grasp of the strengths and weaknesses of each side of the argument from two very competent philosophers. I thought Sinnott-Armstrong's arguments from evil and the hiddenness of God were his most powerful arguments, but I don't think he responded to the moral argument or resurrection argument adequately. He brought up a good point about Craig's arguments, that they don't lead to a God with all the attributes they were attributing to Him. Craig responded that all the arguments put together do, and the resurrection alone would be enough to establish it, but it does make me think that if even one of the arguments fails, then the being he argued for doesn't quite match the description of the God he believes in. Again, recommended.
August 19, 2010
This is a rare and refreshing book where two philosophers on opposite sides of the God debate actually agree to have an intelligent debate in print. It's almost worth reading just for that, but there's even more reason to work your way through these pages. If you read it with an open mind, this book will challenge you intellectually and (possibly) spiritually. Neither Craig (the Christian) nor Sinnot-Armstrong (the Atheist) argues his case perfectly, and you probably won't change your mind about whether or not you believe in God (specifically the Christian God, in the case of this book). However, you will probably find much food for thought.
Note: This book is not an easy read, so be prepared to take your time. It's worth it in the end.
Note: This book is not an easy read, so be prepared to take your time. It's worth it in the end.
January 10, 2011
This is a decent exchange between an articulate Christian and atheist. Both sides brought forth decent arguments and I thought the first part of the book was carried by the atheist (Sinnott-Armstrong) and the second half by the Christian (Craig). A refreshing element of this debate is that the atheist actually brought forth positive reasons for asserting the atheist position rather than simply passively poking holes in the other side. Some of the topics covered include the argument from contigency, from experience, from morality and historical arguments which support the notion of the resurrected Christ (this being the weakest in my opinion) and from the other side the problem of evil, the argument from action and the argument from ignorance.
August 13, 2013
Decided to give this a read, since Craig had been popping up recently in my reddit feed. This book was at my local used bookstore for a pittance, so I picked it up.
I've watched Craig a few times in debate, and have never really thought much of him, but believed that maybe in a written form, his arguments might have more weight, maybe in book form he would have the time to give his words more thought.
Again, I was disappointed. Craig is scientifically and logically ignorant, using circular logic and often does not understand the concepts he speaks of.
I want to go on, but I'd much rather toss the book aside and read something by Hitchens to cleanse my palate.
I've watched Craig a few times in debate, and have never really thought much of him, but believed that maybe in a written form, his arguments might have more weight, maybe in book form he would have the time to give his words more thought.
Again, I was disappointed. Craig is scientifically and logically ignorant, using circular logic and often does not understand the concepts he speaks of.
I want to go on, but I'd much rather toss the book aside and read something by Hitchens to cleanse my palate.
October 20, 2008
Not a very helpful book in answering your question about if God exists or not. Both arguments are strong (they have their weaknesses, though) and neither comes out the victor. The only thing I learned is that your presuppositions will determine how you read the data. If you read this I hope you get that much out of it.
August 6, 2011
This is a pretty good (and accessible) introduction to the arguments for/against the existence of God. You see some of the familiar arguments on both sides, but presented in as non-technical a fashion as possible, though these are understandably much abbreviated. Still, if you're interested in this debate, and need an entree into the literature, this is a good place to begin.
February 23, 2012
I'm always appreciative of good debate, but admit I was disappointed when the argument for an atheist worldview was then turned to favor the agnostic worldview. What happened?- I was really curious to see a good match and instead Sinnott-Armstrong resorted to arguing that his case may not really be the case (atheism) while not fully responding to Craig.
March 12, 2013
This book can raise many questions in the minds of theist and atheist both as various points put forward by both the authors are truly never-ending. However, since both the sides are presented, it gives enough scope to readers to challenge age-old rituals, traditions and thinking as well as question life's mystery. Enjoyable as a whole.
March 2, 2012
One of the best books confronting believers and non-believers.
The two sides representing themselves here are equally intelligent and philosophically interesting, which makes it a much more engaging and thought-provoking for readers on any side of this controversial fence.
The two sides representing themselves here are equally intelligent and philosophically interesting, which makes it a much more engaging and thought-provoking for readers on any side of this controversial fence.
October 5, 2010
Not my type of thing! Two retards debating something neither of them will ever prove until the end of time. Thats why its called Faith!
June 27, 2011
A very interesting book. The Problem of Evil is in fact Mr. Craig's achilles heel. I owe this book a review.
August 2, 2011
Good, healthy debate. Craig wins, though.
August 14, 2012
A nice little synopsis of the God question. Though I am biased (as a Christian), it seems like Craig took the debate. Sinnott-Armstrong just didn't seem like a strong philosopher here.
November 6, 2012
I appreciate the balanced, back-and-forth debate approach of this book
October 14, 2013
Pretty eye opening
May 11, 2018
El capítulo tres parece desconectado del dos...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews