catacosmosis 's Key Ideas from God?
by William Lane Craig, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong

Craig argues that without God, objective moral values cannot exist—right and wrong would be mere societal constructs. Sinnott-Armstrong challenges this, asserting that morality is rooted in human empathy and societal cooperation, not divine authority. He questions why moral values tied to religion often reflect cultural biases. This debate pushes readers to consider whether morality is inherently divine or a product of human evolution and shared values.

Craig defends the resurrection of Jesus as historical proof of God’s existence, citing eyewitness accounts and the early Christian movement as evidence. Sinnott-Armstrong challenges these claims, pointing out the lack of empirical evidence and the possibility of alternative explanations, such as legend development or hallucinations. The debate illustrates the broader question: Can historical claims ever provide sufficient evidence for supernatural events?

Sinnott-Armstrong highlights how science provides natural explanations for phenomena previously attributed to God, such as the origins of the universe and life. He argues that invoking God as an explanation halts further inquiry. Craig counters by asserting that science and faith address different questions—science explains how, while God explains why. The discussion explores whether science has rendered God unnecessary or if the divine still holds explanatory power.

A key tension in the debate is the burden of proof. Craig argues that the complexity and existence of the universe demand an explanation, and belief in God is the most rational answer. Sinnott-Armstrong, however, shifts the burden, insisting that extraordinary claims, like the existence of God, require extraordinary evidence. This exchange forces readers to consider who must justify their position more rigorously: the believer or the skeptic.

Craig defends the coexistence of faith and reason, arguing that belief in God is not irrational but supported by logical arguments like the cosmological and moral cases. Sinnott-Armstrong challenges this, suggesting faith often fills gaps where reason and evidence fall short. He cautions against accepting beliefs without sufficient evidence, even if they provide comfort or meaning. The debate underscores the tension between faith as trust and reason as critical evaluation.

Craig presents belief in God as a rational conclusion based on evidence and philosophical reasoning. Sinnott-Armstrong counters by questioning whether God, as an abstract and unfalsifiable concept, has meaningful implications for understanding the world. He argues that belief in God often reflects cultural conditioning rather than rational inquiry. This discussion pushes readers to reflect on the nature and justification of their own beliefs about the divine.