William Lane Craig: Argument

“Therefore, when a person refuses to come to Christ it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God's Spirit on his heart. No one in the final analysis really fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God.”

“In a word, metaphysical naturalism is absurd. Notice that my argument is not that it is unappealing. Rather, it is that metaphysical naturalism flies in the face of reason and experience and is therefore untenable.”

“Sixth is the argument from purpose:
# According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true then I do not plan to do anything.
# But, I planned to come to tonight’s debate. That is why I am here. From which it follows:
# Therefore, naturalism is not true.”

“Fifth is the argument from freedom:
# According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true then I do not do anything freely. Everything is determined.
# But, I can freely agree or disagree with premise (1). From which it follows:
# Therefore, naturalism is not true.”

“Third is the argument from truth:
# According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true then there are no true sentences. That is because they are all meaningless.
# But, premise (1) is true. That is what the naturalist believes and asserts.
# Therefore, naturalism is not true.”

“Second is the argument from meaning:
# According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true then no sentence has any meaning. And he says that all the sentences in his own book are in fact meaningless.
# But, premise (1) has meaning. We all understood it.
# Therefore, naturalism is not true.”

“When it comes to showing Christianity to be true we're dealing with somebody else, and therefore we need to give them arguments and evidence to show them that what I know to be true is true. And then the role of the Holy Spirit will be to use those arguments and evidence as I lovingly present them to draw that person to himself. So, in knowing Christianity to be true the Holy Spirit is primary and argument and evidence is secondary, but in showing Christianity to be true argument and evidence is primary and it is the Holy Spirit is secondary as using those as means by which he draws a person to himself.”

“I think that the fundamental way in which we know Christianity is true is through the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. I do not think that arguments and evidence are necessary in order for faith to be rational, or for you to know that God exists and has revealed himself in Christ. So I would say that the fundamental way we know Christianity is true is through the witness of the Holy Spirit and reason and argument then can confirm the Spirit's witness. The person who has good apologetic arguments passes, in a sense, a double warrant for his faith. He has the warrant provided by the Holy Spirit, and then he has the double warrant provided by argument and evidence. But should he lack the argument and evidence he can still be warranted just on the basis of the Holy Spirit. That's knowing Christianity to be true.”

“Finally, the argument from personal existence - this is perhaps the coup de grace against naturalism:
# According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true then I do not exist. He says there are no selves, there are no persons, no first-person perspectives.
# But, I do exist! I know this as certainly as I know anything. From which it follows:
# Therefore, naturalism is not true.”

“Seventh is the argument from enduring:
# According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true then I do not endure for two moments of time.
# But, I have been sitting here for more than a minute. If you think that you are the same person who walked into the room tonight then you should agree that:
# Therefore, naturalism is not true.”

“Fourth is the argument from moral praise and blame:
# According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true then I am not morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for any of my actions because, as I said, on his view objective moral values and duties do not exist.
# But, I am morally praiseworthy and blameworthy for at least some of my actions. If you think that you have ever done something truly wrong or truly good then you should conclude:
# Therefore, naturalism is not true.”

“First is the argument from intentionality:
# According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true then I cannot think about anything. That is because there are no intentional states.
# But I am thinking about naturalism. From which it follows,
# Therefore, naturalism is not true.
So, if you think that you ever think about anything you should conclude that naturalism is false.”

“What can we say about metaphysical naturalism? Again, I want to make two points.
# My arguments for the existence of God show that metaphysical naturalism is not true. There is a personal, transcendent reality beyond the physical universe.
# Secondly, I think that metaphysical naturalism is so contrary to reason and experience as to be absurd.
In the following arguments, the first premise in every case is taken from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Rosenberg Dr. Rosenberg]’s own book.”