How Dr William Lane Craig fails on proving god:

[B5C]

A Moral Argument
1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
2) At least one objective moral value exists.
3) Therefore, God exists.

A Cosmological Argument
1) Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2) The universe exists.
3) Therefore the universe has an explanation of its existence.
4) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
5) Therefore, the explanation of the universe's existence is God.

An Ontological Argument
1) If it is possible that God exists, then God exists.
2) It is possible that God exists.
3) Therefore, God exists.
Source: http://i.imgur.com/zlxkQ.jpg

My reasons why he fails:
1. There is no such thing as a objective morality. All morality is subjective. Morality has changed overtime. Remember slavery was biblical acceptable and now it's not.

2. The Cosmological Argument fails due to the fact if the universe requires explanation of it's existence then god needs an explanation of it's existence as well. Also putting god in the gaps of sciences is a fallacy.

3.

1. If it is possible that God does not exists, then God does not exists.
2. It is possible that God does not exists.
3. Therefore, God does not exists.

[Revolution starts with U]

1. There is no such thing as a objective morality. All morality is subjective. Morality has changed overtime. Remember slavery was biblical acceptable and now it's not.
You don't even need this because his argument there is a pretty clear non-sequiter. Even were there one objective morality (is there?) how that proves God exists is beyond me.
If unicorns do not exist than no horned horses exist
At least one horned horse exists
Therefore, unicorns exist

Does that sound logical to you?



2. The Cosmological Argument fails due to the fact if the universe requires explanation of it's existence than god needs an explanation of it's existence as well. Also putting god in the gaps of sciences is a fallacy.

Don't need this one either because that argument was a non-sequiter too. (Also religous people have no problem falling back on the "God doesn't need a cause" fallacy)
The fallacy in this one is that he is merely asserting that the explanation must be G-D. Why? It could be membrane theory, or any other plausible scientific explanations, or G-D. But nothing says it must be G-D.




1. If it is possible that God does not exists, then God does not exists.
2. It is possible that God does not exists.
3. Therefore, God does not exists.


This one is valid, but why does G-D not exist if it is possible G-D doesn't exist?

I remember Craig's arguments being much better than these tho.. are you sure these aren't just strawmen?

[Judicator]

You don't even need this because his argument there is a pretty clear non-sequiter. Even were there one objective morality (is there?) how that proves God exists is beyond me.
If unicorns do not exist than no horned horses exist
At least one horned horse exists
Therefore, unicorns exist

Does that sound logical to you?


I think we have to try to characterize the argument a bit more charitably. For example:

P1) The existence of objective morality is a fact (deep down, he says we all know it or want to believe it)
P2) Theism is consistent with objective morality
P3) Atheism is inconsistent with objective morality
C1) Therefore, theism is more consistent with the facts
P4) Things which are more consistent with the facts are more likely to be true
C2) Therefore, theism is more likely to be true

Hopefully C1, P4, and C2 are fairly straightforward, answering your question about how objective morality would imply God exists. I object to P1-P3, and I assume you do too.



Don't need this one either because that argument was a non-sequiter too. (Also religous people have no problem falling back on the "God doesn't need a cause" fallacy)
The fallacy in this one is that he is merely asserting that the explanation must be G-D. Why? It could be membrane theory, or any other plausible scientific explanations, or G-D. But nothing says it must be G-D.


Cosmology was *extremely problematic* for many evidentialist theists back when the dominant theory was the universe was eternal. This is because, under the theist view, eternal things don't need a cause. There needs to be a reason why they exist, rather than not, but this is different from having a cause.

Using the language of causality seems to be clever dodge to the obvious retort that saying god created the universe simply moves the question of "why is there something rather than nothing" to "why is there a supernatural world rather than no supernatural world" and doesn't get us any closer to an answer.