Register to read the introduction…
Without God, there is no real obligation to hold true to morals. Morals are simply devices that we have adapted to in order to ensure the survival of our species. Craig uses the example of rape, saying that certainly everyone knows that rape is wrong, but without God there is nothing truly wrong with rape, it is simply something that we avoid because it is not beneficial to humankind. But because there is a real moral objection to this behavior, then it is important because it is another argument in favor of God. The three standards for this argument are that, If God does not exist, neither do objective morals. Moral Objectives do exist, therefore God must also exist. (Craig pg. 17-19) The fourth argument for God states the his existence makes sense of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. In his argument, Craig says he will not treat the New Testament as an inspired text, but as a historical Greek text to prove the point from an outside view. (Craig pg. 22) Now, Jesus was an important historical figure who had a huge influence on the world, even to this day, therefore it makes sense that He should be brought into the discussion regarding the existence of
…show more content…
Therefore, one conclusion has been eliminated from the matter, leaving the question; Does God exist or Not? My first answer is that it is impossible to know. The debate itself has shown me time and time again, with all the back and forth that no one has any sound evidence for or against God. I will take the two arguments that speak most to me and draw my conclusion from those on a personal level, for I believe that is all that can be done. It is clear to me now that there is no cart blanche answer to this question. The first is that God can be immediately known and experienced by Craig. Whether or not this is simply a chemical reaction in the brain or not, I find that it is important because one could always argue that God is the one who invented this phenomenon. The second is by Tooley, that God is not as evident as he could be and that he is hiding himself. His conclusion was that because of this, God does not exist. From these two arguments, I conclude that God does exist but he can only be known in the mind and through personal experience. Therefore, those who seek personal experience with God will find him and those who do not seek personal experience will
Therefore, one conclusion has been eliminated from the matter, leaving the question; Does God exist or Not? My first answer is that it is impossible to know. The debate itself has shown me time and time again, with all the back and forth that no one has any sound evidence for or against God. I will take the two arguments that speak most to me and draw my conclusion from those on a personal level, for I believe that is all that can be done. It is clear to me now that there is no cart blanche answer to this question. The first is that God can be immediately known and experienced by Craig. Whether or not this is simply a chemical reaction in the brain or not, I find that it is important because one could always argue that God is the one who invented this phenomenon. The second is by Tooley, that God is not as evident as he could be and that he is hiding himself. His conclusion was that because of this, God does not exist. From these two arguments, I conclude that God does exist but he can only be known in the mind and through personal experience. Therefore, those who seek personal experience with God will find him and those who do not seek personal experience will