What do you think?
Rate this book
Em guarda: defenda a fé cristã com razão e precisão
Em guarda, leitor! Você tem em suas mãos as respostas para essas e outras tantas perguntas que deixam qualquer pessoa insegura na hora de defender sua fé. Trata-se de um manual de treinamento conciso, escrito por William Lane Craig, um dos mais renomados defensores da fé cristã na atualidade. O livro é repleto de ilustrações, notas explicativas e esquemas para ajudar na memorização dos melhores argumentos para a defesa de sua fé com razão e precisão.
320 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 2010
1198 people are currently reading
4997 people want to read
About the author
William Lane Craig
136 books847 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 311 reviews
April 21, 2010
MY REVIEW:
If you have ever wondered what apologetics is or if God even exists, then On Guard is the book for you to read. William Lane Craig writes a fairly easy-to-understand book in a fun and easy-reading style that walks you through both of these questions and many more. Besides the good content, the sidebar definitions, quotes, pictures, facts, and the Talk About It boxes make this a wonderfully interactive book.
While this book would be for older teens and adults, and take time to read and possibly re-read sections to get a good handle on the subject, it is well worth the time and effort. It will be a book you refer to over and over again.
BOOK OVERVIEW:
We are currently experiencing a renaissance of interest in Christian apologetics. Due to the virulent attacks of the New Atheists, the Internet Infidels, and all manner of Biblical Bashers, along with a rising anti-evangelical bias in the media, evangelical Christians are demanding training in how to defend their Christian faith. There is a need for a well-rounded training manual that provides the “how-tos” of defending the Christian worldview. William Lane Craig’s new book, On Guard, intends to be that manual.
A highly accessible, visual, and concise book loaded with helpful figures and interesting sidebars, On Guard is a one-stop guidebook to learn how to defend your faith. Combining the four core arguments for God’s existence with a case for the historicity of Jesus, this readable book also addresses difficult issues such as the problems of suffering and religious relativism. Writing in a highly personable way, Dr. Craig relates his own winding path to faith and tells the story of how God saved him and equipped him to become one of the world’s leading Christian apologists.
“American society has already become post-Christian,” writes Dr. Craig. “Belief in a sort of generic God is still the norm, but belief in Jesus Christ is now politically incorrect.” Packed with stories of Dr. Craig’s encounters with religious skeptics, On Guard provides more than philosophical arguments. It relates real life experiences that illustrate the themes of our current culture. Dr. Craig maintains: “If the Gospel is to be heard as an intellectually viable option for thinking men and women today, then it’s vital that we as Christians try to shape American culture in such a way that Christian belief cannot be dismissed as mere superstition.”
According to Dr. Craig, the role of apologetics is to shape culture, strengthen believers, and win unbelievers. On Guard is the tool by which shaping, strengthening, and winning moves from improbable dream to attainable reality. Using an interactive layout designed to provoke thoughtful reflection and discussion among readers, this approachable book will be an instrument of impact to believers who are searching for and struggling with this culture’s biggest questions.
On Guard simplifies Dr. Craig’s vast work in apologetics yet is not simplistic. It provides easy to memorize arguments for God’s existence and the resurrection of Jesus, along with answers to the objections that one will likely encounter in sharing these arguments with others.
* * * * *
This review copy was provided courtesy of The B&B Media Group.
If you have ever wondered what apologetics is or if God even exists, then On Guard is the book for you to read. William Lane Craig writes a fairly easy-to-understand book in a fun and easy-reading style that walks you through both of these questions and many more. Besides the good content, the sidebar definitions, quotes, pictures, facts, and the Talk About It boxes make this a wonderfully interactive book.
While this book would be for older teens and adults, and take time to read and possibly re-read sections to get a good handle on the subject, it is well worth the time and effort. It will be a book you refer to over and over again.
BOOK OVERVIEW:
We are currently experiencing a renaissance of interest in Christian apologetics. Due to the virulent attacks of the New Atheists, the Internet Infidels, and all manner of Biblical Bashers, along with a rising anti-evangelical bias in the media, evangelical Christians are demanding training in how to defend their Christian faith. There is a need for a well-rounded training manual that provides the “how-tos” of defending the Christian worldview. William Lane Craig’s new book, On Guard, intends to be that manual.
A highly accessible, visual, and concise book loaded with helpful figures and interesting sidebars, On Guard is a one-stop guidebook to learn how to defend your faith. Combining the four core arguments for God’s existence with a case for the historicity of Jesus, this readable book also addresses difficult issues such as the problems of suffering and religious relativism. Writing in a highly personable way, Dr. Craig relates his own winding path to faith and tells the story of how God saved him and equipped him to become one of the world’s leading Christian apologists.
“American society has already become post-Christian,” writes Dr. Craig. “Belief in a sort of generic God is still the norm, but belief in Jesus Christ is now politically incorrect.” Packed with stories of Dr. Craig’s encounters with religious skeptics, On Guard provides more than philosophical arguments. It relates real life experiences that illustrate the themes of our current culture. Dr. Craig maintains: “If the Gospel is to be heard as an intellectually viable option for thinking men and women today, then it’s vital that we as Christians try to shape American culture in such a way that Christian belief cannot be dismissed as mere superstition.”
According to Dr. Craig, the role of apologetics is to shape culture, strengthen believers, and win unbelievers. On Guard is the tool by which shaping, strengthening, and winning moves from improbable dream to attainable reality. Using an interactive layout designed to provoke thoughtful reflection and discussion among readers, this approachable book will be an instrument of impact to believers who are searching for and struggling with this culture’s biggest questions.
On Guard simplifies Dr. Craig’s vast work in apologetics yet is not simplistic. It provides easy to memorize arguments for God’s existence and the resurrection of Jesus, along with answers to the objections that one will likely encounter in sharing these arguments with others.
* * * * *
This review copy was provided courtesy of The B&B Media Group.
February 23, 2016
Without question, this is the best book on apologetics I’ve ever read. Craig approaches important questions such as “does God exist?” and “did Christ rise from the dead?” more from a platform of logic than theology and, along the way, has taught me more not just about my own beliefs, but more about the theory of logic. Totally accessible, solid, and thought-provoking.
April 24, 2022
Cartea mi-a servit ca suport de curs pentru studiul în apologetică pe care l-am făcut cu un grup de liceeni. WL Craig scrie un mic kit de supraviețuire pentru secolul 21 adresat creștinului care are curajul să ”dea socoteală de nădejdea care este în el”. Datorită cărții, studiul a venit cu câștiguri intelectuale și spirituale atât pentru tineri, cât și pentru mine.
Cartea adună 4 argumente filosofico-științifice pentru raționalitatea existenței în Dumnezeu, răspunsuri la obiecțiile principale (e.g. problema răului, pluralismul) și prezentarea faptelor ce susțin învierea lui Hristos. Structura demonstrează apartenența lui Craig la apologetica clasică, care demonstrează existența lui Dumnezeu din filosofie și învierea lui Hristos pe baza evidențelor.
Craig a simplificat sarcina cititorului, definind termenii de specialitate și rezumând grafic argumentele la finalul fiecărui capitol. Datorită amplitudinii cu care Craig își dezvoltă argumentele, uneori pare că le finalizează subit. Aș fi preferat o lectură mai închegată și poate o listă la final cu îndrumări cu privire la obiecțiile mai complexe. În rest, rigurozitatea și simplitatea cu care WL Craig își prezintă argumentele este impresionantă, ținând cont și de publicul căruia i se adresează.
Traducerea în limba română este cursivă în mare parte, însă dezamăgitoare în ce privește traducerea termenilor științifici și filosofici deoarece se poate sesiza că anumiți termeni sunt traduși mot a mot. Uneori eram nevoit să citesc originalul englez pentru a căuta termenul consacrat în română. 2.5* pentru traducere, 4.5* pentru carte.
Cartea adună 4 argumente filosofico-științifice pentru raționalitatea existenței în Dumnezeu, răspunsuri la obiecțiile principale (e.g. problema răului, pluralismul) și prezentarea faptelor ce susțin învierea lui Hristos. Structura demonstrează apartenența lui Craig la apologetica clasică, care demonstrează existența lui Dumnezeu din filosofie și învierea lui Hristos pe baza evidențelor.
Craig a simplificat sarcina cititorului, definind termenii de specialitate și rezumând grafic argumentele la finalul fiecărui capitol. Datorită amplitudinii cu care Craig își dezvoltă argumentele, uneori pare că le finalizează subit. Aș fi preferat o lectură mai închegată și poate o listă la final cu îndrumări cu privire la obiecțiile mai complexe. În rest, rigurozitatea și simplitatea cu care WL Craig își prezintă argumentele este impresionantă, ținând cont și de publicul căruia i se adresează.
Traducerea în limba română este cursivă în mare parte, însă dezamăgitoare în ce privește traducerea termenilor științifici și filosofici deoarece se poate sesiza că anumiți termeni sunt traduși mot a mot. Uneori eram nevoit să citesc originalul englez pentru a căuta termenul consacrat în română. 2.5* pentru traducere, 4.5* pentru carte.
April 14, 2011
Dr. Craig mentions in his book that if Christians have good arguments in support of their faith, they are less apt to become quarrelsome or upset. Hmmm....this is very telling. I guess Christians did not have very good arguments during the Dark Ages, and when Christians took over the Americas from the Indians. Why didn't they use their "arguments" then too, instead of the rack, or the noose, or the rifle, and so forth?? Well...when they got to Africa, and explained Christianity to the natives, the Africans laughed at them, so I assume when that did not work, their arguments consisted of a very sharp blade and/or a tight noose. Even today, the classic Christian arguments fail to prove god exists or that Jesus is god, but that hasn't stopped them.
Dr. Craig mentions in his book that he is afraid that secularists are "bent on eliminating religion from the public square." This is far from the truth, as I welcome public debate. This is how people learn how to become critical thinkers, which prevents them from becoming the "sitting ducks" that Craig talks about.
Dr. Craig also states that "A person who has been raised in a culture that is sympathetic to the Christian faith will be open to the gospel in a way that a person brought up in a secular culture will not. For a person who is thoroughly secularized, you may as well tell him to believe in fairies or leprechaun as in jesus Christ!"
Ahh....Dr. Craig does seem to be aware of cultural relativism, and that this does not just apply to Christianity, or to secularism, but to Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, and so on. But, if I use Dr. Craig as an example, I can say with almost certainty that if he moved to India, I doubt he would adopt Hinduism, and the Hindus would feel the same way about him that Craig now feels towards "secularists." It goes both ways.
Dr. Craig's also states that his experience with professors who may be very knowledgeable in their area of specialization, is that they are almost clueless when it comes to the evidence for Christianity.
I highly doubt the professors were clueless to the evidence--because there is no evidence! This is why Christians have FAITH, as faith is belief WITHOUT evidence. Dr. Craig is misrepresenting his "faith" by making such a claim.
Dr. Craig explains how distraught he is at the amount of young people dropping out of religion, and goes on to explain one of the reasons why. You see, according to Dr. Craig, the churches these days are focused on "...emotional worship experiences, felt needs, and entertainment. It's no wonder they become sitting ducks for that teacher or professor who RATIONALLY takes aim at their faith. In high school and college, students are intellectually assaulted with every manner of non-Christian philosophy conjoined with an overwhelming relativism and skepticism."
Students of all ages should be taught philosophy and logic in particular in order to be critical thinkers. They should not just be taught Christian philosophy, but all of philosophy, including the philosophy of religion, and world religion courses. In college, students do not learn the "Sunday School" version of religion believers are familiar with--they learn it academically, which is much different. Remember what I said earlier, in that the arguments for the existence of any gods or goddesses have been refuted, so when someone is exposed to RATIONAL thought and ideas, the fallacies in the arguments are more likely to become clearer, which is one reason why people loose their faith. Furthermore, when they are provided with all the information they would get if they were going to seminary to become priests or preachers,and so on, this too would lead to skepticism. This is exactly what happens to many students when the study at seminary--they become disillusioned, and many "loose their Jesus"
Also remember,there is NO evidence--just faith--even if Dr. Craig attempts to say otherwise. Dr. Craig believes that skepticism is not a good thing, as it leads to loss of faith--but if skepticism were not a good thing, we would still be in the Dark Ages. It is when one questions everything they do not understand, and they are taught to think logically and critically, that things become more clearly understood--which is something Christians want to avoid. Their bible does not meet the standards for historicity, and is not "evidence" of anything. It is, in fact, a book of myths--largely plagiarized myths--with a bit of historical reference thrown in. Just imagine if you will the Jews, who were nomads and slaves, and never had an empire of their own. They adopted gods and traditions of their slave masters, and other groups, and created their own god, based on other gods. The Jews have also admitted to embellishing the text, so it cannot be deemed reliable.
As a side note, Yahweh did say that he would "destroy the wisdom of the wise" (1Cor1:19) So far though, I would say Yahweh is rather impotent in this regard (and many others), as the number of "wise" people keeps growing.
I recommend not wasting time or money on this book unless you favor indoctrination over education.
Dr. Craig mentions in his book that he is afraid that secularists are "bent on eliminating religion from the public square." This is far from the truth, as I welcome public debate. This is how people learn how to become critical thinkers, which prevents them from becoming the "sitting ducks" that Craig talks about.
Dr. Craig also states that "A person who has been raised in a culture that is sympathetic to the Christian faith will be open to the gospel in a way that a person brought up in a secular culture will not. For a person who is thoroughly secularized, you may as well tell him to believe in fairies or leprechaun as in jesus Christ!"
Ahh....Dr. Craig does seem to be aware of cultural relativism, and that this does not just apply to Christianity, or to secularism, but to Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, and so on. But, if I use Dr. Craig as an example, I can say with almost certainty that if he moved to India, I doubt he would adopt Hinduism, and the Hindus would feel the same way about him that Craig now feels towards "secularists." It goes both ways.
Dr. Craig's also states that his experience with professors who may be very knowledgeable in their area of specialization, is that they are almost clueless when it comes to the evidence for Christianity.
I highly doubt the professors were clueless to the evidence--because there is no evidence! This is why Christians have FAITH, as faith is belief WITHOUT evidence. Dr. Craig is misrepresenting his "faith" by making such a claim.
Dr. Craig explains how distraught he is at the amount of young people dropping out of religion, and goes on to explain one of the reasons why. You see, according to Dr. Craig, the churches these days are focused on "...emotional worship experiences, felt needs, and entertainment. It's no wonder they become sitting ducks for that teacher or professor who RATIONALLY takes aim at their faith. In high school and college, students are intellectually assaulted with every manner of non-Christian philosophy conjoined with an overwhelming relativism and skepticism."
Students of all ages should be taught philosophy and logic in particular in order to be critical thinkers. They should not just be taught Christian philosophy, but all of philosophy, including the philosophy of religion, and world religion courses. In college, students do not learn the "Sunday School" version of religion believers are familiar with--they learn it academically, which is much different. Remember what I said earlier, in that the arguments for the existence of any gods or goddesses have been refuted, so when someone is exposed to RATIONAL thought and ideas, the fallacies in the arguments are more likely to become clearer, which is one reason why people loose their faith. Furthermore, when they are provided with all the information they would get if they were going to seminary to become priests or preachers,and so on, this too would lead to skepticism. This is exactly what happens to many students when the study at seminary--they become disillusioned, and many "loose their Jesus"
Also remember,there is NO evidence--just faith--even if Dr. Craig attempts to say otherwise. Dr. Craig believes that skepticism is not a good thing, as it leads to loss of faith--but if skepticism were not a good thing, we would still be in the Dark Ages. It is when one questions everything they do not understand, and they are taught to think logically and critically, that things become more clearly understood--which is something Christians want to avoid. Their bible does not meet the standards for historicity, and is not "evidence" of anything. It is, in fact, a book of myths--largely plagiarized myths--with a bit of historical reference thrown in. Just imagine if you will the Jews, who were nomads and slaves, and never had an empire of their own. They adopted gods and traditions of their slave masters, and other groups, and created their own god, based on other gods. The Jews have also admitted to embellishing the text, so it cannot be deemed reliable.
As a side note, Yahweh did say that he would "destroy the wisdom of the wise" (1Cor1:19) So far though, I would say Yahweh is rather impotent in this regard (and many others), as the number of "wise" people keeps growing.
I recommend not wasting time or money on this book unless you favor indoctrination over education.
August 11, 2012
I highly recommend this book (and the companion DVD) for a small group study. The science chapters are challenging, especially if you aren't mathematically & scientifically inclined, but the results are well worth the effort. I've already used a handful of his points speaking with friends to great effect and my group isn't done with the book yet!
September 13, 2012
The material is good, save for those parts where his Arminianism and Molinism shine through (chapters 7 and 10). Here you’ll find the usual statements (note: I have the vyrso version of the book, which doesn’t have page numbers, but all the quotes below are from chapter 10):
“[...] in a sense, God doesn’t send anybody to hell. His Desire is that everyone be saved [...] God has no choice but to give us what we deserve. God will not send us to hell-but we shall send ourselves.”
Except the Bible does use language of God casting people into hell. Sure, we deserve it and merit it. But the whole “God doesn’t send you to hell” always strikes me as trying to needlessly skirt around the issue. It’s like saying “The judge doesn’t sentence you to prison, you sentence yourself to prison!” There is nothing wrong with pointing out that we are deserving of the punishment. But its incorrect to paint the picture as though we’ve just tied God’s hands behind his back and forced him, against his desire, to cast us into hell.
“[...] sins like theft, lying, adultery, and so forth are only of finite consequence and so deserve only a finite punishment. But, in a sense, these sins aren’t what separates someone from God. For Christ has died for those sins; the penalty for those sins has been paid.”
So why do people go to hell? Because “[...] the refusal to accept Christ and His sacrifice [...] repudiates God’s provision for sin and so decisively separates someone from God and His salvation. To reject Christ is to reject God Himself.”
But isn’t any sin a rejection of God? Doesn’t any sin separate us decisively from God? While Jesus was paying for all those sins, why didn’t he go ahead and pay for the sin of rejecting him too?
Also, notice something very important. It looks like, from what Craig is saying, that if the Son had never become incarnate, no one would be capable of comitting the infinite offense deserving infinite punishment! Thus, if God never became incarnate, all people would only merit a finite punishment and then, presumably, get to go heaven! So wouldn’t the better scenario have been for the Father to never send the Son?!
“[...] God doesn’t judge people who have never heard of Chrsit on the basis of whether they’ve placed their faith in Christ. Rather God judges them on the basis of the light of God’s general revelation in nature and conscience that they do have. The offer of Romans 2:7–’To those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life’–is a bona fide offer of salvation.”
But if Romans 2:7 is a bona fide offer of salvation to those who have never heard the gospel, isn’t it an offer of salvation on the basis of good works?
“[...] salvation is universally accessible through God’s general revelation in nature and conscience.”
Emphasis original. This seems to indicate either that the gospel is contained in general revelation (in conjunction with conscience?) or that salvation by works is possible (following general revelation and conscience to the best of one’s ability). I know that Craig would deny the latter, so he must be saying the former: the gospel or enough of the gospel is contained in general revelation to save people.
“It’s possible that in order to create this many people who will be saved, God also had to create this many people who will be lost.”
That sort of Molinist answer won’t be very comforting to the lost. The lost become a means for the salvation of others.
“Now it would, indeed, be fantastically improbable that by happenstance alone it just turned out that all those who never hear the gospel and are lost are persons who would not have believed the gospel even if they had heard it. But that’s not the hypothesis! The hypothesis is that a provident God has so arranged the world. Given a God endowed with knowledge of how every person would freely respond to His grace in whatever circumstances God might place him, it’s not at all implausible that God has ordered the world in the way described.”
I wonder what Craig would do with passages like Matthew 11:20-24:
“Then he began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.”
This seems to indicate that there are the sort of persons that Craig denies exist. There are persons that God knows would have repented under conditions he did not present them with.
I think these are samples of his poor theology. But this is only evident in chapters 7 and 10 where Craig relies heavily on this theology in order to answer the objections. If you can work your way through these sorts of claims, this would be a good book to use in an apologetics class at your church. But if you don’t plan on doing a study group and if you’ve already listened to most of Craig’s debates you won’t be missing anything if you skip this book.
“[...] in a sense, God doesn’t send anybody to hell. His Desire is that everyone be saved [...] God has no choice but to give us what we deserve. God will not send us to hell-but we shall send ourselves.”
Except the Bible does use language of God casting people into hell. Sure, we deserve it and merit it. But the whole “God doesn’t send you to hell” always strikes me as trying to needlessly skirt around the issue. It’s like saying “The judge doesn’t sentence you to prison, you sentence yourself to prison!” There is nothing wrong with pointing out that we are deserving of the punishment. But its incorrect to paint the picture as though we’ve just tied God’s hands behind his back and forced him, against his desire, to cast us into hell.
“[...] sins like theft, lying, adultery, and so forth are only of finite consequence and so deserve only a finite punishment. But, in a sense, these sins aren’t what separates someone from God. For Christ has died for those sins; the penalty for those sins has been paid.”
So why do people go to hell? Because “[...] the refusal to accept Christ and His sacrifice [...] repudiates God’s provision for sin and so decisively separates someone from God and His salvation. To reject Christ is to reject God Himself.”
But isn’t any sin a rejection of God? Doesn’t any sin separate us decisively from God? While Jesus was paying for all those sins, why didn’t he go ahead and pay for the sin of rejecting him too?
Also, notice something very important. It looks like, from what Craig is saying, that if the Son had never become incarnate, no one would be capable of comitting the infinite offense deserving infinite punishment! Thus, if God never became incarnate, all people would only merit a finite punishment and then, presumably, get to go heaven! So wouldn’t the better scenario have been for the Father to never send the Son?!
“[...] God doesn’t judge people who have never heard of Chrsit on the basis of whether they’ve placed their faith in Christ. Rather God judges them on the basis of the light of God’s general revelation in nature and conscience that they do have. The offer of Romans 2:7–’To those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life’–is a bona fide offer of salvation.”
But if Romans 2:7 is a bona fide offer of salvation to those who have never heard the gospel, isn’t it an offer of salvation on the basis of good works?
“[...] salvation is universally accessible through God’s general revelation in nature and conscience.”
Emphasis original. This seems to indicate either that the gospel is contained in general revelation (in conjunction with conscience?) or that salvation by works is possible (following general revelation and conscience to the best of one’s ability). I know that Craig would deny the latter, so he must be saying the former: the gospel or enough of the gospel is contained in general revelation to save people.
“It’s possible that in order to create this many people who will be saved, God also had to create this many people who will be lost.”
That sort of Molinist answer won’t be very comforting to the lost. The lost become a means for the salvation of others.
“Now it would, indeed, be fantastically improbable that by happenstance alone it just turned out that all those who never hear the gospel and are lost are persons who would not have believed the gospel even if they had heard it. But that’s not the hypothesis! The hypothesis is that a provident God has so arranged the world. Given a God endowed with knowledge of how every person would freely respond to His grace in whatever circumstances God might place him, it’s not at all implausible that God has ordered the world in the way described.”
I wonder what Craig would do with passages like Matthew 11:20-24:
“Then he began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.”
This seems to indicate that there are the sort of persons that Craig denies exist. There are persons that God knows would have repented under conditions he did not present them with.
I think these are samples of his poor theology. But this is only evident in chapters 7 and 10 where Craig relies heavily on this theology in order to answer the objections. If you can work your way through these sorts of claims, this would be a good book to use in an apologetics class at your church. But if you don’t plan on doing a study group and if you’ve already listened to most of Craig’s debates you won’t be missing anything if you skip this book.
August 18, 2020
A logical and philosophical defense of Christianity, making the case for God's existence, God's creation of the universe, absolute morality, Jesus' divinity, Jesus' resurrection, and Jesus as the only way to God. The book is well-written and includes objections and responses. My notes below don't do justice to Dr. Craig's thorough explanations.
Dr. Craig is a very intelligent theologian and philosopher with many resources at Reasonable Faith.
Notes
Foreword
5 arguments for God and Christianity
1. Beginning of universe clearly points towards a Creator. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist, so it has a cause.
2. Universe's incredible fine-tuning defies coincidence and exhibits handiwork of intelligent designer.
3. Our objective moral values are evidence that there's a God, since only He could establish a universal standard of right and wrong.
4. Historical evidence for resurrection of Jesus, including empty tomb, eyewitness accounts, and origin of Christian faith, establish divinity of Jesus.
5. God can be immediately known and experienced by those who seek Him.
If evolution occurred despite prohibitive odds, it must have been a miracle, and would be additional evidence for God.
What Difference Does It Make If God Exists?
In making apologetic arguments, raise the "price" of denying the conclusion as high as you can. Show what it will "cost" opponent intellectually to resist conclusion. Even if they are willing to pay price, they may see why you're not obliged to, so they may quit ridiculing Christians for irrationality. If they're not willing to pay price, they may change mind.
If God doesn't exist, there's no objective right or wrong. But people can't live that way, so they affirm values anyway, revealing the inadequacy of a world without God.
Why Does Anything at All Exist?
Leibniz' Cosmological Argument
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of existence either in necessity of its own nature or an external cause. God exists by necessity of His own nature. Universe isn't exception to this principle; that would be arbitrary.
2. If universe has explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. Universe doesn't exist necessarily. As cause of space and time, being must be unbodied, transcendent mind.
3. Universe exists.
4. Therefore, universe has an explanation of its existence, following from 1 and 3.
5. Therefore, explanation for existence of universe is God, following from 2 and 4.
Why Did the Universe Begin?
Al-Ghazali's reasoning for transcendent creator
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, universe has a cause.
Kalam cosmological argument
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Something can't come from nothing. Otherwise, anything and everything could come from nothing.
2. Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, universe has a cause. This follows from 1 and 2. Universe didn't cause itself; that would mean universe existed before it came to exist. This cause is an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, personal creator.
If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why anything or everything can come into being from nothing. Why can only universes come from nothing?
Something that's eternal doesn't need a cause, because it never came into being. God is eternal and uncaused.
Cause of universe must be transcendent cause beyond universe; must be uncaused, first cause; must be immaterial and unimaginably powerful; must be personal being.
Creator of universe must be personal being with a free will, to explain how a timeless cause can produce a temporal affect with a beginning (universe).
Why Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life?
In the absence of fine-tuning, not even matter or chemistry would exist, let alone life.
If someone tries to explain away fine-tuning, ask, "Then why do the detractors of design feel compelled to embrace an extravagance like the Many-Worlds Hypothesis to avoid design?"
Argument for design doesn't try to explain why this universe exists, but why a life-permitting universe exists.
Argument for God from design
1. Fine-tuning of universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design. Fine-tuning is a scientific fact.
2. It's not due to physical necessity or chance. Constants and quantities are independent of nature's laws. A theory of everything won't explain them. To say that "We can only observe life-permitting universes, so we don't need an explanation" doesn't remove need for explanation. Many-Worlds Hypothesis (multiverse) may still require fine-tuning, and there's no scientific evidence for multiverse.
3. Therefore, it's due to design. This follows from 1 and 2. To recognize an explanation doesn't require an explanation of the explanation, so an explanation for God isn't necessary. Mind is simpler than the universe.
Can We Be Good without God?
Argument for God from morality
1. If God doesn't exist, objective moral values and duties don't exist. Without God, naturalism is true, and morality is illusory.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist. Moral experience reveals this.
3. Therefore, God exists.
If someone objects to premise 2, ask if tolerance, open-mindedness, and love are objective moral values. Ask if it's objectively wrong to impose one's beliefs on another.
If there's no moral lawgiver, then there's no objective moral law we must obey.
Morally good/bad is determined by God's nature, and morally right/wrong is determined by His will. God wills something because He is good, and something is right because God wills it.
Atheistic Moral Platonism
Seems unintelligible. What does it mean to say that moral value "justice" exists? In the absence of any people, how does justice itself exist in abstract?
Poses no basis for moral duties; that moral values exist doesn't obligate people to duty.
Humanism
Humanists say that whatever causes human flourishing is good, and whatever detracts from it is bad. But in atheistic worldview, it's arbitrary to value human flourishing. And why would good and bad exist in atheistic worldview?
Naturalism
Naturalists say that Christians are only Christians because their beliefs are result of evolution and social conditioning. But in naturalistic worldview, all beliefs (not just moral ones) are result of evolution and social conditioning, and if this is true, we should be skeptical of knowledge in general, including evolutionary account (so it's self-defeating).
Dr. Craig says moral argument is most effective argument for God, because it touches people where they live (morality), unlike cosmological and teleological arguments.
What about Suffering?
When talking to someone about problem of suffering, distinguish between intellectual and emotional problems. They must be addressed in different ways.
We're not in a position to judge whether suffering is justified because we're finite. God is omniscient.
Moral argument for suffering
1. If God doesn't exist, objective moral values don't exist.
2. Evil exists.
3. Therefore, objective moral values exist. Some things are evil.
4. Therefore, God exists.
At a surface level, suffering calls God's existence into question. But at a deeper level, it proves His existence, because without God, there'd be no moral foundation for calling anything evil; we couldn't call suffering bad. If atheist believes suffering is bad, that's a moral judgment that's possible only if God exists.
If someone says, "That's no evidence that God exists," say, "I guess you don't find my arguments convincing. You must find one of my premises false. Which one, and why?"
Even if there was no evidence for God's existence, it wouldn't prove He doesn't exist. There can be no evidence for atheism, because it's impossible to prove that God doesn't exist.
Atheism is belief that God doesn't exist, not absence of belief in God. Otherwise, babies would be atheists.
Who Was Jesus?
The church chose only the earliest sources, which were closest to Jesus and original disciples, to include in New Testament (NT), and left out later, secondary accounts (like forged apocryphal gospels). Best historical sources were included in NT. To look at only writings outside NT is to ignore earliest, primary sources in favor of sources that are later, secondary, less reliable. Modern radical reconstructions of Jesus are based on writings outside NT.
There is no historically credible source outside NT that calls into question portrait of Jesus painted in gospels.
Historians agree gospels were written and circulated within 1st generation after events, when eyewitnesses were still alive. So, they can't be legendary.
5 reasons accounts of Jesus aren't legendary
1. There wasn't sufficient time for legendary influences to erase core historical facts of gospels. Primary sources are from 1st century AD, most within 60 years of resurrection.
2. Gospels aren't folk tales or urban legends; they're about real people, events, places.
3. Jews could memorize large amounts of oral tradition; transmission was reliable.
4. Embellishment was restrained by eyewitnesses and apostles' supervision.
5. Gospel writers have a track record of reliability.
Paul's letters were written before gospels, and include major details about Jesus. 1 Cor has been dated to within 5 years of Jesus' death.
Luke-Acts was written by a traveling companion of Paul, who interviewed eyewitnesses to Jesus' life while in Jerusalem.
That Jesus saw Himself as Jewish Messiah is shown by independent sources, historical fit, dissimilarity.
Who Jesus believed Himself to Be
1. Divine and human (Mark 8:27-30; 11:15-17; 14:61-65; 15:26; Matt 11:1-11; Luke 7:19-23; John 12:1-19)
2. Son of God (Mark 12:1-9; 13:32; 14:60-64; Matt 11:27)
3. Son of Man (Dan 7; Mark 2:1-12; 8:12; 9:1; 14:60-64; Matt 5:31-32; 11:4-5; 19:28; Luke 11:20)
4. Judge (Luke 12:8-9)
Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?
After Jesus' resurrection, He appeared to over 500 people at once. Paul apparently had personal contact with them, because he knew that some had died (1 Cor 15:6). He's effectively saying that witnesses are available for questioning.
Jesus' brothers didn't believe in Him during His lifetime, but became ardent Christians after His death, and were willing to die for this belief (as James did). James was converted by Jesus' appearing to him (1 Cor 15:7), which can only be explained by Jesus actually resurrecting.
If God exists, there's no good reason to be skeptical about miracles. For a God who can create the universe, a resurrection is child's play.
Proof of Jesus' resurrection
1. Numerous lines of historical evidence prove Jesus' tomb was found empty by His women followers.
2. Several lines of historical evidence establish that several persons and groups saw Jesus alive from dead on numerous occasions in different places.
3. Origin of Christian faith depends on belief of disciples that God raised Jesus from dead. Earliest disciples sincerely believed Jesus was raised from the dead, and were willing to die for that belief. They wouldn't die to protect a conspiracy.
Tomb must have been empty when disciples started preaching about resurrection and people believed, or people would've presented dead body.
Paul's record of Jesus' resurrection in 1 Cor 15 is from within 5 years of Jesus' death.
It's anachronistic to suppose 1st-century Jews hoaxed Jesus' resurrection, because Jews didn't expect Messiah to die and be resurrected.
Ancient stories of dying and rising gods and heroes bear few similarities to Jesus' resurrection.
Jews had no concept of resurrection of individuals prior to end of world (Mark 9:9-11).
Jesus couldn't have survived crucifixion and entombment.
Jesus' appearances weren't hallucinations. If disciples had hallucinations, based on their theology, they'd be of Jesus in heaven, not with a resurrected body. Jesus appeared multiple times, in multiple places, to multiple individuals and groups, believers and enemies.
Resurrection is raising a dead person to glory and immortality; revivification is return of a dead person to mortal life (John 11:1-44).
Is Jesus the Only Way to God?
Just because Christians are religious particularists, and some Christians are arrogant or immoral, that doesn't invalidate their view of religious particularism. That's a fallacy (argumentum ad hominem).
Religious pluralists also believe their view is right, and that all religious particularists are wrong, so by their own view they should consider themselves arrogant and immoral.
To say that a person is Christian only because of their birthplace or culture commits genetic fallacy. The truths of a belief don't depend on how a person came to that belief.
It's fair that Hell is eternal punishment, because it's the penalty for a sin of infinite consequence: rejecting God.
God doesn't judge people who've never heard of Christ on the basis of their faith in Christ, but on basis of God's revelation in nature and conscience, which they have. Rom 2:7. Job and Melchizedek were saved through Christ without conscious knowledge of Him, and without being members of Israel.
God's being all-loving doesn't compel Him to save everyone. A world with universal salvation could have other overriding deficiencies that make them less preferable.
Anyone who never hears gospel and is lost would have rejected gospel even if they had heard it, because they also reject general revelation. God works through His providence that those who would respond to the gospel if they heard it, do hear it. Acts 17:24-28
We can agree with religious pluralists that people generally adopt religion of their culture, so if those who were born into non-Christian cultures were born into a Christian culture, they would have become nominally Christian. But that doesn't mean they'd be saved. Many born into a Christian culture reject Christianity.
Dr. Craig is a very intelligent theologian and philosopher with many resources at Reasonable Faith.
Notes
Foreword
5 arguments for God and Christianity
1. Beginning of universe clearly points towards a Creator. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist, so it has a cause.
2. Universe's incredible fine-tuning defies coincidence and exhibits handiwork of intelligent designer.
3. Our objective moral values are evidence that there's a God, since only He could establish a universal standard of right and wrong.
4. Historical evidence for resurrection of Jesus, including empty tomb, eyewitness accounts, and origin of Christian faith, establish divinity of Jesus.
5. God can be immediately known and experienced by those who seek Him.
If evolution occurred despite prohibitive odds, it must have been a miracle, and would be additional evidence for God.
What Difference Does It Make If God Exists?
In making apologetic arguments, raise the "price" of denying the conclusion as high as you can. Show what it will "cost" opponent intellectually to resist conclusion. Even if they are willing to pay price, they may see why you're not obliged to, so they may quit ridiculing Christians for irrationality. If they're not willing to pay price, they may change mind.
If God doesn't exist, there's no objective right or wrong. But people can't live that way, so they affirm values anyway, revealing the inadequacy of a world without God.
Why Does Anything at All Exist?
Leibniz' Cosmological Argument
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of existence either in necessity of its own nature or an external cause. God exists by necessity of His own nature. Universe isn't exception to this principle; that would be arbitrary.
2. If universe has explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. Universe doesn't exist necessarily. As cause of space and time, being must be unbodied, transcendent mind.
3. Universe exists.
4. Therefore, universe has an explanation of its existence, following from 1 and 3.
5. Therefore, explanation for existence of universe is God, following from 2 and 4.
Why Did the Universe Begin?
Al-Ghazali's reasoning for transcendent creator
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, universe has a cause.
Kalam cosmological argument
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Something can't come from nothing. Otherwise, anything and everything could come from nothing.
2. Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, universe has a cause. This follows from 1 and 2. Universe didn't cause itself; that would mean universe existed before it came to exist. This cause is an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, personal creator.
If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why anything or everything can come into being from nothing. Why can only universes come from nothing?
Something that's eternal doesn't need a cause, because it never came into being. God is eternal and uncaused.
Cause of universe must be transcendent cause beyond universe; must be uncaused, first cause; must be immaterial and unimaginably powerful; must be personal being.
Creator of universe must be personal being with a free will, to explain how a timeless cause can produce a temporal affect with a beginning (universe).
Why Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life?
In the absence of fine-tuning, not even matter or chemistry would exist, let alone life.
If someone tries to explain away fine-tuning, ask, "Then why do the detractors of design feel compelled to embrace an extravagance like the Many-Worlds Hypothesis to avoid design?"
Argument for design doesn't try to explain why this universe exists, but why a life-permitting universe exists.
Argument for God from design
1. Fine-tuning of universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design. Fine-tuning is a scientific fact.
2. It's not due to physical necessity or chance. Constants and quantities are independent of nature's laws. A theory of everything won't explain them. To say that "We can only observe life-permitting universes, so we don't need an explanation" doesn't remove need for explanation. Many-Worlds Hypothesis (multiverse) may still require fine-tuning, and there's no scientific evidence for multiverse.
3. Therefore, it's due to design. This follows from 1 and 2. To recognize an explanation doesn't require an explanation of the explanation, so an explanation for God isn't necessary. Mind is simpler than the universe.
Can We Be Good without God?
Argument for God from morality
1. If God doesn't exist, objective moral values and duties don't exist. Without God, naturalism is true, and morality is illusory.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist. Moral experience reveals this.
3. Therefore, God exists.
If someone objects to premise 2, ask if tolerance, open-mindedness, and love are objective moral values. Ask if it's objectively wrong to impose one's beliefs on another.
If there's no moral lawgiver, then there's no objective moral law we must obey.
Morally good/bad is determined by God's nature, and morally right/wrong is determined by His will. God wills something because He is good, and something is right because God wills it.
Atheistic Moral Platonism
Seems unintelligible. What does it mean to say that moral value "justice" exists? In the absence of any people, how does justice itself exist in abstract?
Poses no basis for moral duties; that moral values exist doesn't obligate people to duty.
Humanism
Humanists say that whatever causes human flourishing is good, and whatever detracts from it is bad. But in atheistic worldview, it's arbitrary to value human flourishing. And why would good and bad exist in atheistic worldview?
Naturalism
Naturalists say that Christians are only Christians because their beliefs are result of evolution and social conditioning. But in naturalistic worldview, all beliefs (not just moral ones) are result of evolution and social conditioning, and if this is true, we should be skeptical of knowledge in general, including evolutionary account (so it's self-defeating).
Dr. Craig says moral argument is most effective argument for God, because it touches people where they live (morality), unlike cosmological and teleological arguments.
What about Suffering?
When talking to someone about problem of suffering, distinguish between intellectual and emotional problems. They must be addressed in different ways.
We're not in a position to judge whether suffering is justified because we're finite. God is omniscient.
Moral argument for suffering
1. If God doesn't exist, objective moral values don't exist.
2. Evil exists.
3. Therefore, objective moral values exist. Some things are evil.
4. Therefore, God exists.
At a surface level, suffering calls God's existence into question. But at a deeper level, it proves His existence, because without God, there'd be no moral foundation for calling anything evil; we couldn't call suffering bad. If atheist believes suffering is bad, that's a moral judgment that's possible only if God exists.
If someone says, "That's no evidence that God exists," say, "I guess you don't find my arguments convincing. You must find one of my premises false. Which one, and why?"
Even if there was no evidence for God's existence, it wouldn't prove He doesn't exist. There can be no evidence for atheism, because it's impossible to prove that God doesn't exist.
Atheism is belief that God doesn't exist, not absence of belief in God. Otherwise, babies would be atheists.
Who Was Jesus?
The church chose only the earliest sources, which were closest to Jesus and original disciples, to include in New Testament (NT), and left out later, secondary accounts (like forged apocryphal gospels). Best historical sources were included in NT. To look at only writings outside NT is to ignore earliest, primary sources in favor of sources that are later, secondary, less reliable. Modern radical reconstructions of Jesus are based on writings outside NT.
There is no historically credible source outside NT that calls into question portrait of Jesus painted in gospels.
Historians agree gospels were written and circulated within 1st generation after events, when eyewitnesses were still alive. So, they can't be legendary.
5 reasons accounts of Jesus aren't legendary
1. There wasn't sufficient time for legendary influences to erase core historical facts of gospels. Primary sources are from 1st century AD, most within 60 years of resurrection.
2. Gospels aren't folk tales or urban legends; they're about real people, events, places.
3. Jews could memorize large amounts of oral tradition; transmission was reliable.
4. Embellishment was restrained by eyewitnesses and apostles' supervision.
5. Gospel writers have a track record of reliability.
Paul's letters were written before gospels, and include major details about Jesus. 1 Cor has been dated to within 5 years of Jesus' death.
Luke-Acts was written by a traveling companion of Paul, who interviewed eyewitnesses to Jesus' life while in Jerusalem.
That Jesus saw Himself as Jewish Messiah is shown by independent sources, historical fit, dissimilarity.
Who Jesus believed Himself to Be
1. Divine and human (Mark 8:27-30; 11:15-17; 14:61-65; 15:26; Matt 11:1-11; Luke 7:19-23; John 12:1-19)
2. Son of God (Mark 12:1-9; 13:32; 14:60-64; Matt 11:27)
3. Son of Man (Dan 7; Mark 2:1-12; 8:12; 9:1; 14:60-64; Matt 5:31-32; 11:4-5; 19:28; Luke 11:20)
4. Judge (Luke 12:8-9)
Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?
After Jesus' resurrection, He appeared to over 500 people at once. Paul apparently had personal contact with them, because he knew that some had died (1 Cor 15:6). He's effectively saying that witnesses are available for questioning.
Jesus' brothers didn't believe in Him during His lifetime, but became ardent Christians after His death, and were willing to die for this belief (as James did). James was converted by Jesus' appearing to him (1 Cor 15:7), which can only be explained by Jesus actually resurrecting.
If God exists, there's no good reason to be skeptical about miracles. For a God who can create the universe, a resurrection is child's play.
Proof of Jesus' resurrection
1. Numerous lines of historical evidence prove Jesus' tomb was found empty by His women followers.
2. Several lines of historical evidence establish that several persons and groups saw Jesus alive from dead on numerous occasions in different places.
3. Origin of Christian faith depends on belief of disciples that God raised Jesus from dead. Earliest disciples sincerely believed Jesus was raised from the dead, and were willing to die for that belief. They wouldn't die to protect a conspiracy.
Tomb must have been empty when disciples started preaching about resurrection and people believed, or people would've presented dead body.
Paul's record of Jesus' resurrection in 1 Cor 15 is from within 5 years of Jesus' death.
It's anachronistic to suppose 1st-century Jews hoaxed Jesus' resurrection, because Jews didn't expect Messiah to die and be resurrected.
Ancient stories of dying and rising gods and heroes bear few similarities to Jesus' resurrection.
Jews had no concept of resurrection of individuals prior to end of world (Mark 9:9-11).
Jesus couldn't have survived crucifixion and entombment.
Jesus' appearances weren't hallucinations. If disciples had hallucinations, based on their theology, they'd be of Jesus in heaven, not with a resurrected body. Jesus appeared multiple times, in multiple places, to multiple individuals and groups, believers and enemies.
Resurrection is raising a dead person to glory and immortality; revivification is return of a dead person to mortal life (John 11:1-44).
Is Jesus the Only Way to God?
Just because Christians are religious particularists, and some Christians are arrogant or immoral, that doesn't invalidate their view of religious particularism. That's a fallacy (argumentum ad hominem).
Religious pluralists also believe their view is right, and that all religious particularists are wrong, so by their own view they should consider themselves arrogant and immoral.
To say that a person is Christian only because of their birthplace or culture commits genetic fallacy. The truths of a belief don't depend on how a person came to that belief.
It's fair that Hell is eternal punishment, because it's the penalty for a sin of infinite consequence: rejecting God.
God doesn't judge people who've never heard of Christ on the basis of their faith in Christ, but on basis of God's revelation in nature and conscience, which they have. Rom 2:7. Job and Melchizedek were saved through Christ without conscious knowledge of Him, and without being members of Israel.
God's being all-loving doesn't compel Him to save everyone. A world with universal salvation could have other overriding deficiencies that make them less preferable.
Anyone who never hears gospel and is lost would have rejected gospel even if they had heard it, because they also reject general revelation. God works through His providence that those who would respond to the gospel if they heard it, do hear it. Acts 17:24-28
We can agree with religious pluralists that people generally adopt religion of their culture, so if those who were born into non-Christian cultures were born into a Christian culture, they would have become nominally Christian. But that doesn't mean they'd be saved. Many born into a Christian culture reject Christianity.
April 20, 2010
Title: ON GUARD
Author: William Lane Craig
Publisher: David C. Cook
March 2010
ISBN: 978-1-4347-6488-1
Genre: Inspirational/apologetics
Most people will probably never defend their faith to an atheist, but the Bible says that we should always be prepared. And in this day and age, there are many attacks from the “new atheists,” internet infidels, and all manner of Biblical bashers. With this in mind, there is an increased need for evangelical Christians to be trained to defend their faith.
William Lane Craig is a renowned professor at the Talbot School of Theology, and he has established a reputation as one of the most prominent Christian philosophers of our day. He has an increased demand as a defender of the Christian faith at well-televised debates with atheists, with results usually leaving the atheist speechless, and some observers coming to Christ.
If you would like to know how to defend your faith, or even to grow in your knowledge of Christianity, then pick up ON GUARD. It will help you to come out a stronger Christian.
There are several questions scattered through the pages of each chapter for readers to consider, but there are no places inside the book to record your answers. As you study ON GUARD, you will want to have both your Bible, and a notebook handy, the notebook for recording your thoughts and answers.
There are plenty of charts available for study included in the book, as well as some cute cartoonish drawings that help to bring the points across. I highly recommend this book. $16.99. 286 pages.
Author: William Lane Craig
Publisher: David C. Cook
March 2010
ISBN: 978-1-4347-6488-1
Genre: Inspirational/apologetics
Most people will probably never defend their faith to an atheist, but the Bible says that we should always be prepared. And in this day and age, there are many attacks from the “new atheists,” internet infidels, and all manner of Biblical bashers. With this in mind, there is an increased need for evangelical Christians to be trained to defend their faith.
William Lane Craig is a renowned professor at the Talbot School of Theology, and he has established a reputation as one of the most prominent Christian philosophers of our day. He has an increased demand as a defender of the Christian faith at well-televised debates with atheists, with results usually leaving the atheist speechless, and some observers coming to Christ.
If you would like to know how to defend your faith, or even to grow in your knowledge of Christianity, then pick up ON GUARD. It will help you to come out a stronger Christian.
There are several questions scattered through the pages of each chapter for readers to consider, but there are no places inside the book to record your answers. As you study ON GUARD, you will want to have both your Bible, and a notebook handy, the notebook for recording your thoughts and answers.
There are plenty of charts available for study included in the book, as well as some cute cartoonish drawings that help to bring the points across. I highly recommend this book. $16.99. 286 pages.
March 26, 2024
Acho que este é um livro que deve ser lido por todos aqueles que procuram a verdade acerca da existência de Deus, quer sejam crentes, agnósticos ou ateus. O Dr. William Lane Craig é provavelmente o maior apologista cristão da atualidade, participando em inúmeros debates com os grandes nomes do ateísmo. Este é, por isso, um livro eminentemente prático, em que o autor apresenta, de forma muito clara, vários argumentos a favor da existência de Deus.
O esquema do livro é quase sempre o mesmo: para cada um desses argumentos, o autor começa por apresentar as objeções que tipicamente são levantadas, para, de seguida, refutar cada uma dessas objeções. Esta sistematização acaba por ser um dos principais pontos fortes do livro, na medida em que o autor consegue transportar para o livro toda a sua experiência de apologética.
Demonstrada a plausibilidade da existência de Deus, o autor passa para a defesa da Ressurreição de Jesus Cristo, tema que pôde aprofundar durante o seu Doutoramento. Esta segunda parte segue exatamente a mesma estrutura da primeira.
Em resumo: para um cristão, este livro certamente terá de a virtude de ajudar a aprofundar e a estruturar os argumentos acerca da existência de Deus, o que deverá conduzir não só a um aprofundamento da própria fé, mas também a uma maior consciencialização da importância da apologética cristã; para um ateu, parece-me que este livro poderá ter o condão de colocar em crise muitas das suas crenças, apercebendo-se assim da irracionalidade que está por detrás de muitos dos "dogmas" que sempre seguiu.
Acabo este livro com a profunda convição de que o problema dos cristãos (entre os quais me incluo) não está no conteúdo da sua fé, mas sim na forma tosca e desinformada como a defendem.
O esquema do livro é quase sempre o mesmo: para cada um desses argumentos, o autor começa por apresentar as objeções que tipicamente são levantadas, para, de seguida, refutar cada uma dessas objeções. Esta sistematização acaba por ser um dos principais pontos fortes do livro, na medida em que o autor consegue transportar para o livro toda a sua experiência de apologética.
Demonstrada a plausibilidade da existência de Deus, o autor passa para a defesa da Ressurreição de Jesus Cristo, tema que pôde aprofundar durante o seu Doutoramento. Esta segunda parte segue exatamente a mesma estrutura da primeira.
Em resumo: para um cristão, este livro certamente terá de a virtude de ajudar a aprofundar e a estruturar os argumentos acerca da existência de Deus, o que deverá conduzir não só a um aprofundamento da própria fé, mas também a uma maior consciencialização da importância da apologética cristã; para um ateu, parece-me que este livro poderá ter o condão de colocar em crise muitas das suas crenças, apercebendo-se assim da irracionalidade que está por detrás de muitos dos "dogmas" que sempre seguiu.
Acabo este livro com a profunda convição de que o problema dos cristãos (entre os quais me incluo) não está no conteúdo da sua fé, mas sim na forma tosca e desinformada como a defendem.
February 10, 2021
An excellent introduction to several good arguments for God's existence. This book is great for high school and college age kids who don't have the philosophical training behind them. For college graduates and the philosophically-minded, Reasonable Faith would probably be a better choice. But this is a great book to start with.
January 4, 2023
Book two in my exploration for Christian argumentation. God I really don't want to give this five stars but I feel it would be dishonest if I didn't. Fine, take my five stars William.
Importance of Theistic Discussion
Craig asserts that the atheist cannot live both consistently and happily. I...understand this sentiment in the sense that atheists believe both they and the universe will someday end, and on some grandiose level, life is meaningless. But what if we zoom in? Can the atheist or agnostic not look around at the world they find themselves in, recognize the happiness offered by its contents, and simply enjoy them? Perhaps I'm missing his idea but in what sense is this inconsistent with the lack of an objective morality?
Cosmological Argument for Theism
Craig then chooses to defend the well-known Kalam argument:
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe begins to exist
If 1 & 2 hold, it necessarily follows that 3) the universe has a cause
I think 1) and 2) (and thus 3) are reasonable enough. Cool, the universe has a cause. The hard part is arguing that the aforementioned cause is a personal God. And he chooses to spend an (honestly laughable) 2 pages on this. His argument is simple: if the creator wasn't personal, then the universe would likely be as permanent as its cause (and not 13.7 billion years old).
I think this idea has more merit than most atheists are willing to concede. After all, the atheist typically responds with an unimpressive but reasonable "I don't know." But let's examine the theist's proposed God. This being is omnipotent, is omniscient, transcends space-time, has been present forever (which Craig himself argued is mathematically impossible); and in the case of the Christian God, is 100% individual yet 100% part of a trinity, has resurrected, can turn water into wine, etc., etc. Can we please take a step back and consider objectively? If we didn't live in a society where religion was so normalized, would this not sound...fairytale-esque? Should we not be skeptical?
In a sense, why should a personal God be any more likely than a monster who farts out universes? Or better yet, why should a personal God be any more likely than a God who shares many of the same characteristics—omniscience, omnipotence, etc.—but is impersonal? Even if a personal God is more likely, who are we to understand the choices of the divine?
Fine Tuning Argument for Theism
As for the fine tuning argument, Craig makes good arguments (probably the best I've heard). However, I don't understand his objection to the many worlds hypothesis. He mentions the analogy of the 100 shooters. If all 100 shooters miss the target, then yes, the target must ask themselves why they are still alive (and should reasonably attribute their survival to intentional design). The analogy is just backwards though. For example, if 1,000,000 aimed "life guns" at the wall behind the target and one of those bullets were to bring them to life, is chance then not a reasonable explanation?
He then brings up an objection by Robert Penrose: the odds of the universe's initial low entropy conditions existing by chance are one out of 10^1230 while the odds of the formation of the solar system by the random collision of particles is 10^1060. Thus, it is much more likely to observe an orderly universe no larger than our solar system, but alas, the universe is larger. If these statistics are correct...I don't have a response. I think this is pretty good evidence for God.
Craig then objects to Dawkins' idea that a God capable of creating such a fine tuned universe is at least more complex (and thus more improbable) than the universe itself. He argues that the divine mind itself is simple, even if its creations are complex. I'm sympathetic towards this idea, but I have my hesitations. Sure, it's simple to imagine a mind with infinite knowledge and wisdom. But for a mind like this to actually exist, should it not be as complex as it is knowledgeable or wise? How complex must the construct of an omniscient mind be?
Morality Argument for Theism
Now, the morality argument. I maintain that a subjective, normative morality is possible but I admit I'm a bit troubled. What am I to say about Eastern countries who normalize child abuse? Should we impose Western principles on them? Every fibre of my being tells me we should, but at the same time, I recognize that rationalists from Eastern countries likely justify their principles of authority and loyalty just as fiercely. This is troubling, but I think it contributes only to the practicality of a subjective morality and not to the discussion of its existence.
Suffering Argument for Atheism
I echo Craig's sentiment that the burden of proof falls upon both the theist and atheist. Atheists really do get this wrong a lot. Just because something is unprovable does not mean you don't need reasons or evidence justifying your side.
Now for the probability that God and suffering coexist. Craig argues that we aren't in a position to say that it's improbable that God lacks reasons for permitting suffering (e.g. there's evidence showing that butterflies, for example, can cause tsunamis). Bit handwavy but fair enough. He also argues that Christian doctrines enable God and suffering to coexist. He claims that both eternal life and knowledge of God is more important than suffering, and cites examples where tragic events incited a massive increase in the Christian population. Again, fair. Craig himself concedes that it is still more improbable than probable that God and suffering coexist (which is a pretty reasonable assessment), but that the Christian arguments are better.
Arguments for Jesus
Hell, these might be the strongest arguments for Christianity I've ever heard. Time to dig further into the atheist objections.
What's so frustrating about this, however, is that there's no way for me to decide these truths for myself without having an educational background in historical analysis. I'm forced to either spend a ridiculous of time and energy into these endeavours or trust the expertise of historians.
Importance of Theistic Discussion
Craig asserts that the atheist cannot live both consistently and happily. I...understand this sentiment in the sense that atheists believe both they and the universe will someday end, and on some grandiose level, life is meaningless. But what if we zoom in? Can the atheist or agnostic not look around at the world they find themselves in, recognize the happiness offered by its contents, and simply enjoy them? Perhaps I'm missing his idea but in what sense is this inconsistent with the lack of an objective morality?
Cosmological Argument for Theism
Craig then chooses to defend the well-known Kalam argument:
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe begins to exist
If 1 & 2 hold, it necessarily follows that 3) the universe has a cause
I think 1) and 2) (and thus 3) are reasonable enough. Cool, the universe has a cause. The hard part is arguing that the aforementioned cause is a personal God. And he chooses to spend an (honestly laughable) 2 pages on this. His argument is simple: if the creator wasn't personal, then the universe would likely be as permanent as its cause (and not 13.7 billion years old).
I think this idea has more merit than most atheists are willing to concede. After all, the atheist typically responds with an unimpressive but reasonable "I don't know." But let's examine the theist's proposed God. This being is omnipotent, is omniscient, transcends space-time, has been present forever (which Craig himself argued is mathematically impossible); and in the case of the Christian God, is 100% individual yet 100% part of a trinity, has resurrected, can turn water into wine, etc., etc. Can we please take a step back and consider objectively? If we didn't live in a society where religion was so normalized, would this not sound...fairytale-esque? Should we not be skeptical?
In a sense, why should a personal God be any more likely than a monster who farts out universes? Or better yet, why should a personal God be any more likely than a God who shares many of the same characteristics—omniscience, omnipotence, etc.—but is impersonal? Even if a personal God is more likely, who are we to understand the choices of the divine?
Fine Tuning Argument for Theism
As for the fine tuning argument, Craig makes good arguments (probably the best I've heard). However, I don't understand his objection to the many worlds hypothesis. He mentions the analogy of the 100 shooters. If all 100 shooters miss the target, then yes, the target must ask themselves why they are still alive (and should reasonably attribute their survival to intentional design). The analogy is just backwards though. For example, if 1,000,000 aimed "life guns" at the wall behind the target and one of those bullets were to bring them to life, is chance then not a reasonable explanation?
He then brings up an objection by Robert Penrose: the odds of the universe's initial low entropy conditions existing by chance are one out of 10^1230 while the odds of the formation of the solar system by the random collision of particles is 10^1060. Thus, it is much more likely to observe an orderly universe no larger than our solar system, but alas, the universe is larger. If these statistics are correct...I don't have a response. I think this is pretty good evidence for God.
Craig then objects to Dawkins' idea that a God capable of creating such a fine tuned universe is at least more complex (and thus more improbable) than the universe itself. He argues that the divine mind itself is simple, even if its creations are complex. I'm sympathetic towards this idea, but I have my hesitations. Sure, it's simple to imagine a mind with infinite knowledge and wisdom. But for a mind like this to actually exist, should it not be as complex as it is knowledgeable or wise? How complex must the construct of an omniscient mind be?
Morality Argument for Theism
Now, the morality argument. I maintain that a subjective, normative morality is possible but I admit I'm a bit troubled. What am I to say about Eastern countries who normalize child abuse? Should we impose Western principles on them? Every fibre of my being tells me we should, but at the same time, I recognize that rationalists from Eastern countries likely justify their principles of authority and loyalty just as fiercely. This is troubling, but I think it contributes only to the practicality of a subjective morality and not to the discussion of its existence.
Suffering Argument for Atheism
I echo Craig's sentiment that the burden of proof falls upon both the theist and atheist. Atheists really do get this wrong a lot. Just because something is unprovable does not mean you don't need reasons or evidence justifying your side.
Now for the probability that God and suffering coexist. Craig argues that we aren't in a position to say that it's improbable that God lacks reasons for permitting suffering (e.g. there's evidence showing that butterflies, for example, can cause tsunamis). Bit handwavy but fair enough. He also argues that Christian doctrines enable God and suffering to coexist. He claims that both eternal life and knowledge of God is more important than suffering, and cites examples where tragic events incited a massive increase in the Christian population. Again, fair. Craig himself concedes that it is still more improbable than probable that God and suffering coexist (which is a pretty reasonable assessment), but that the Christian arguments are better.
Arguments for Jesus
Hell, these might be the strongest arguments for Christianity I've ever heard. Time to dig further into the atheist objections.
What's so frustrating about this, however, is that there's no way for me to decide these truths for myself without having an educational background in historical analysis. I'm forced to either spend a ridiculous of time and energy into these endeavours or trust the expertise of historians.
December 19, 2018
Craig doesn’t actually say Trump is an amoral prick but he does imply it when he makes a statement to this effect:
If there was no God and we were sufficiently powerful as Popa Doc Duvalier, Marcos or Donald Trump we could pretty much ignore the dictates of conscience and do anything we want and safely live in self-indulgence. Craig wrote this in 2010. Did he vote for who he described as an amoral prick? I suspect so.
Except for implying Donald Trump is amoral, this is the most vacuous book I have read. A transcendental immaterial entity, what does that even mean?
Go ahead, stop selling wedding cakes to Gays because they were born that way and they are going to hell forever since a transcendental immaterial entity has been shown to exist through the use of clever word games and he can link that entity to the one in the New (and Old) testament by faulty assertions made in what he claims is Holy Scripture such as the statement in the book of John: ‘Surely he must be the Son of God, how else did he know all about that woman at the well’. Perhaps, because the book of John was written 40 years after the event, or perhaps he had heard about the women elsewhere, or perhaps he had an identical twin that had told Him, or perhaps He was an alien from another galaxy, or perhaps a 1000 different other explanations, but claiming He is a Son of God is not even on my short list of explanations as it would not be today if the same exact event happened today. Dying for my sin on the cross, what does that even mean? All the Saints and the dead arose from the tombs in Jerusalem on that day according to the Gospel part of the book that Craig believes is special. Stipulate all that to be true, is the best explanation you can come up with is a transcendental immaterial entity wants you to believe in His Son since ‘God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son and who ever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life’, but you must first die and believe without sufficient evidence and be baptized or otherwise you risk eternal damnation. Just because the Book claims the absurd doesn’t mean it was the only possible explanation. I’ll go with ancient astronauts as a better explanation, or I’ll just say it was all made up just like the Mormons did, or the Muslims did, the Homeric Gods, the Roman Gods, or Norse Gods are.
I hate responding to Craig’s vacuity but I will just briefly. He’ll say ‘objective morality’ requires God. He’ll say life will have no ultimate meaning without God (note that word ‘ultimate’, if you are damned to eternal damnation would you still think life had ‘ultimate meaning’ with such a God? Is there even free choice when hell fire is the alternative?). He’ll say all morality would be relative without God. Do you know his God allowed for the raping of virgins if the bride price was paid and a beating a slave was permissible if they did not die within two days? If that’s what objective morality, ultimate meaning in life and absolutism require, include me out.
Craig is certain the universe had a beginning and God created it (actually, Craig says his premises are more probable than the contra and doesn’t thus say certain). His God is a transcendental immaterial entity. As for me, I’ll just say I don’t know if the universe is finite or infinite or how it was created or if BOB or God created. If pressed I’ll say that BOB the great computer made the universe and it too is a transcendental immaterial entity when it wants to be since it is all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere but no where just like an electron is.
Craig is right. Trump is an amoral prick. I hope at least he used his Christian ethics and voted against Trump and is doing everything possible to influence people in the future not to vote for who he implied is an amoral prick, or did Craig rationalized his principals in such a way he could enable an amoral prick to be president.
Yes, I regret reading this stupid book.
If there was no God and we were sufficiently powerful as Popa Doc Duvalier, Marcos or Donald Trump we could pretty much ignore the dictates of conscience and do anything we want and safely live in self-indulgence. Craig wrote this in 2010. Did he vote for who he described as an amoral prick? I suspect so.
Except for implying Donald Trump is amoral, this is the most vacuous book I have read. A transcendental immaterial entity, what does that even mean?
Go ahead, stop selling wedding cakes to Gays because they were born that way and they are going to hell forever since a transcendental immaterial entity has been shown to exist through the use of clever word games and he can link that entity to the one in the New (and Old) testament by faulty assertions made in what he claims is Holy Scripture such as the statement in the book of John: ‘Surely he must be the Son of God, how else did he know all about that woman at the well’. Perhaps, because the book of John was written 40 years after the event, or perhaps he had heard about the women elsewhere, or perhaps he had an identical twin that had told Him, or perhaps He was an alien from another galaxy, or perhaps a 1000 different other explanations, but claiming He is a Son of God is not even on my short list of explanations as it would not be today if the same exact event happened today. Dying for my sin on the cross, what does that even mean? All the Saints and the dead arose from the tombs in Jerusalem on that day according to the Gospel part of the book that Craig believes is special. Stipulate all that to be true, is the best explanation you can come up with is a transcendental immaterial entity wants you to believe in His Son since ‘God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son and who ever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life’, but you must first die and believe without sufficient evidence and be baptized or otherwise you risk eternal damnation. Just because the Book claims the absurd doesn’t mean it was the only possible explanation. I’ll go with ancient astronauts as a better explanation, or I’ll just say it was all made up just like the Mormons did, or the Muslims did, the Homeric Gods, the Roman Gods, or Norse Gods are.
I hate responding to Craig’s vacuity but I will just briefly. He’ll say ‘objective morality’ requires God. He’ll say life will have no ultimate meaning without God (note that word ‘ultimate’, if you are damned to eternal damnation would you still think life had ‘ultimate meaning’ with such a God? Is there even free choice when hell fire is the alternative?). He’ll say all morality would be relative without God. Do you know his God allowed for the raping of virgins if the bride price was paid and a beating a slave was permissible if they did not die within two days? If that’s what objective morality, ultimate meaning in life and absolutism require, include me out.
Craig is certain the universe had a beginning and God created it (actually, Craig says his premises are more probable than the contra and doesn’t thus say certain). His God is a transcendental immaterial entity. As for me, I’ll just say I don’t know if the universe is finite or infinite or how it was created or if BOB or God created. If pressed I’ll say that BOB the great computer made the universe and it too is a transcendental immaterial entity when it wants to be since it is all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere but no where just like an electron is.
Craig is right. Trump is an amoral prick. I hope at least he used his Christian ethics and voted against Trump and is doing everything possible to influence people in the future not to vote for who he implied is an amoral prick, or did Craig rationalized his principals in such a way he could enable an amoral prick to be president.
Yes, I regret reading this stupid book.
July 6, 2015
This is probably one of the best apologetics I’ve ever read. Thoughtful, concise, and logical—it presents a handful of reasoned arguments for Christianity that are very difficult to repudiate.
For each argument, the author goes the extra mile of presenting some of the most common refutations of those arguments, along with counterarguments against those refutations. It illustrates how thoroughly Craig has researched both sides of the issue. He isn’t preparing you to simply preach at someone, he’s preparing you to debate.
What I liked best about “On Guard” was the uniqueness of the arguments. Many of them I had not seen before, which is surprising given their inherent strength. The book also has a number of stories from the author’s life that I found both interesting and encouraging.
A couple of the arguments are built on formal philosophy and so may fly over the head of people who have had little philosophical training. The only philosophy course I had in school was in Logic, so I found myself reading portions of those chapters—“Why Does Anything Exist?” for instance—more than once. Still, I’m glad I expanded my education in that way.
“On Guard” is an excellent book. A useful tool for the believer, and an intriguing, well-reasoned read for the skeptic. I highly recommend it.
For each argument, the author goes the extra mile of presenting some of the most common refutations of those arguments, along with counterarguments against those refutations. It illustrates how thoroughly Craig has researched both sides of the issue. He isn’t preparing you to simply preach at someone, he’s preparing you to debate.
What I liked best about “On Guard” was the uniqueness of the arguments. Many of them I had not seen before, which is surprising given their inherent strength. The book also has a number of stories from the author’s life that I found both interesting and encouraging.
A couple of the arguments are built on formal philosophy and so may fly over the head of people who have had little philosophical training. The only philosophy course I had in school was in Logic, so I found myself reading portions of those chapters—“Why Does Anything Exist?” for instance—more than once. Still, I’m glad I expanded my education in that way.
“On Guard” is an excellent book. A useful tool for the believer, and an intriguing, well-reasoned read for the skeptic. I highly recommend it.
May 20, 2023
Wow this was quite the read! Some parts were really philosophy heavy (which I kind of love tbh) but just takes longer to read and understand.
An awesome defense for Christianity. He starts with proofs of God and then moves even more specifically to the resurrection and Jesus being the only way to God. I think this is the easier version of his other book “Reasonable Faith” and I still thought some parts were difficult to get my brain around. Appreciate Craig using his intellectual gifts to increase my faith in the God of the Bible!
An awesome defense for Christianity. He starts with proofs of God and then moves even more specifically to the resurrection and Jesus being the only way to God. I think this is the easier version of his other book “Reasonable Faith” and I still thought some parts were difficult to get my brain around. Appreciate Craig using his intellectual gifts to increase my faith in the God of the Bible!
February 5, 2025
William Lane Craig does a great job of breaking things down in a simple and easy way to understand. His explanations make it easier to follow and remember. I really enjoyed it because it answered questions I hadn’t thought about before and helped me make better sense of what I already knew. It also made me realize just how important it is to be able to defend my faith—both logically and in my own life.
I’d definitely recommend it, especially for anyone new to apologetics:)
I’d definitely recommend it, especially for anyone new to apologetics:)
September 5, 2024
Made SO many highlights in this book. Compiled in one document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O...
September 5, 2019
William Lane Craig covers familiar ground in this book, but he presents the material in a way that translates “directly to the streets.” His arguments themselves are not new, but he has placed them in flowcharts and shorter premise-based arguments. If you memorize these syllogisms, you will be able to engage unbelievers and friends.
Throughout he tells his own story of how he came to faith and his various doctoral studies in Europe.
Note: I am not debating whether these arguments prove the Triune God of Yea Reformedom. What matters below is the soundness and validity of the arguments.
Why Does Anything Exist at All?
Shorter version:
(1) Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (Leibniz)
(2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
(3) The universe exists.
(4) The universe has an explanation of its existence.
(5) Ergo, God.
I’ll admit. This isn’t my favorite one, and I really like Leibniz. It does raise some important issues, though, concerning abstract objects, meaning, etc. The important point is that Leibniz forces us to distinguish between contingent and necessary existence. I’ll leave it at that for now.
Cosmological Argument
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The great thing about this one is that atheists cannot attack premise (2) without giving up Big Bang cosmology. I am not saying that the Big Bang proves God. (2) is even more interesting. Al-Ghazali “argued that if the universe never began to exist, then there have been an infinite number of past events prior to today” (Craig 78).
Further, you can’t pass through an infinite number of elements one at a time. Before any number can be counted, an infinity of numbers will have to have been counted first.
The Design Argument
Craig’s argument isn’t “Look at a watch. That kind of means there is a God.” Rather, he is saying there is fine-tuning and irreducible complexity in the universe. What accounts for that?
(1) The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
(2) It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
(3) Therefore, it is due to design.
In some ways this might be the most popular argument. I just lay it out before you. I want to spend more time on New Testament arguments.
Who Was Jesus?
Those who insist we ignore evidence from the New Testament are asking us to ignore the earliest and most reliable sources and go to sources which are often hundreds of years later and notoriously unreliable (186).
Basic argument:
(1) The gospels were written less than two generations after events. This means legendary aspects did not have time to creep in.
(2) The gospels employ criteria of embarrassment (e.g., Peter’s failings), historical fit, and coherence. The Gospels also record Jesus’s ignorance about the date of his return, which doesn’t seem like something a start-up group would include.
Resurrection
Three independently established facts:
(1) Empty tomb
(2) Jesus’s live appearances after his death.
(3) The origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.
(1’) The disciples assume the public location of his tomb, thus opening themselves to falsifiability. The story of the chief priests saying the disciples stole the body assumes “from the other side” that the tomb was empty.
(2’) List of eye-witnesses. The witnesses are there to be questioned.
Throughout he tells his own story of how he came to faith and his various doctoral studies in Europe.
Note: I am not debating whether these arguments prove the Triune God of Yea Reformedom. What matters below is the soundness and validity of the arguments.
Why Does Anything Exist at All?
Shorter version:
(1) Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (Leibniz)
(2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
(3) The universe exists.
(4) The universe has an explanation of its existence.
(5) Ergo, God.
I’ll admit. This isn’t my favorite one, and I really like Leibniz. It does raise some important issues, though, concerning abstract objects, meaning, etc. The important point is that Leibniz forces us to distinguish between contingent and necessary existence. I’ll leave it at that for now.
Cosmological Argument
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The great thing about this one is that atheists cannot attack premise (2) without giving up Big Bang cosmology. I am not saying that the Big Bang proves God. (2) is even more interesting. Al-Ghazali “argued that if the universe never began to exist, then there have been an infinite number of past events prior to today” (Craig 78).
Further, you can’t pass through an infinite number of elements one at a time. Before any number can be counted, an infinity of numbers will have to have been counted first.
The Design Argument
Craig’s argument isn’t “Look at a watch. That kind of means there is a God.” Rather, he is saying there is fine-tuning and irreducible complexity in the universe. What accounts for that?
(1) The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
(2) It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
(3) Therefore, it is due to design.
In some ways this might be the most popular argument. I just lay it out before you. I want to spend more time on New Testament arguments.
Who Was Jesus?
Those who insist we ignore evidence from the New Testament are asking us to ignore the earliest and most reliable sources and go to sources which are often hundreds of years later and notoriously unreliable (186).
Basic argument:
(1) The gospels were written less than two generations after events. This means legendary aspects did not have time to creep in.
(2) The gospels employ criteria of embarrassment (e.g., Peter’s failings), historical fit, and coherence. The Gospels also record Jesus’s ignorance about the date of his return, which doesn’t seem like something a start-up group would include.
Resurrection
Three independently established facts:
(1) Empty tomb
(2) Jesus’s live appearances after his death.
(3) The origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.
(1’) The disciples assume the public location of his tomb, thus opening themselves to falsifiability. The story of the chief priests saying the disciples stole the body assumes “from the other side” that the tomb was empty.
(2’) List of eye-witnesses. The witnesses are there to be questioned.
May 10, 2014
Not looking good, thus far WLC is as shallow as Strobel and just as hampered by the fetters of faith, can't seem to think outside his little box with imaginary friends :(
This is torture, reading through this slew of poor thinking and confirmation bias in extremus, arghh. Where to begin? Underlining the bad bits is an extensive exercise :(. I really expected something better than Strobel level idiocy
Chapter six : morals therefore god, might be the worst chapter yet .
This is torture, reading through this slew of poor thinking and confirmation bias in extremus, arghh. Where to begin? Underlining the bad bits is an extensive exercise :(. I really expected something better than Strobel level idiocy
Chapter six : morals therefore god, might be the worst chapter yet .
April 11, 2013
Many helpful features here but Craig's Arminian presuppositions (libertarian freewill in particular) are troubling.
March 27, 2022
A fairly reasonable and logical, although not conclusive and perfect, defense of the Christian faith.
April 30, 2022
Certified good read. Read this book in accordance with church lessons and have to say that chapter 9 was the best because the two guys teaching it were really inspiring, attractive, and unbelievably intelligent. Chapter 10 was fine too I guess.
October 31, 2022
Fitting nicely into Craig’s early biography and academic studies, this compendium of logical arguments for the Christian faith is a work worth knowing. It provides good ammunition in dealing with skeptics who will engage in logical debate.
August 13, 2017
This is an excellent book if you want to understand the arguments of most atheists. But it is not an easy or quick read. It is full of well-crafted arguments for the existence of God and the evidence of the reality of Christ's resurrection. But in order to really own these arguments one must study, re-study, memorize them then add to that precise thinking. I know that I would never be able to be able to defend the faith so expertly but it is wonderful to know that there are folks out there like Craig who do an amazing job of studying the issues and defending the faith. But I loved to read this as it confirmed what I already knew.
A few things I came away with:
"And yet if God does not exist, then in a sense our world is an Auschwitz. There is no right or wrong; all things are permitted."
"But if you were to ask me the main difference Christ has made in my life, without hesitation I would say, 'Meaning!'"
"The first question which should be asked is: Why is there something rather than nothing?"
And if you have never contemplated what "nothing" means, you will in this book. Craig writes, "'Nothing' does not just mean empty space. Nothing is the absence of anything whatsoever, even space itself. As such nothing has no properties at all."
"When we consider universes governed by our laws of nature, almost all of them are life-prohibiting. So the odds that a universe selected randomly out of this lot would be life-permitting are practically nil."
"In my experience, the moral argument is the most effective of all the arguments for the existence of God. I say this grudgingly because my favorite is the cosmological argument....But the moral argument cannot be so easily brushed aside For every day you get up you answer the question of whether there are objective moral values and duties by how you live....No, we cannot truly be good without God; but if we can in some measure be good, then it follows that God exists."
Although most skeptics want to argue the issue intellectually there is usually an emotional reason for their unbelief.
Also he points out that if the early church had invented the story of Jesus' resurrection they would not have had the first discoverers of the empty tomb be women. Women were not credible witnesses in that day and time.
A few things I came away with:
"And yet if God does not exist, then in a sense our world is an Auschwitz. There is no right or wrong; all things are permitted."
"But if you were to ask me the main difference Christ has made in my life, without hesitation I would say, 'Meaning!'"
"The first question which should be asked is: Why is there something rather than nothing?"
And if you have never contemplated what "nothing" means, you will in this book. Craig writes, "'Nothing' does not just mean empty space. Nothing is the absence of anything whatsoever, even space itself. As such nothing has no properties at all."
"When we consider universes governed by our laws of nature, almost all of them are life-prohibiting. So the odds that a universe selected randomly out of this lot would be life-permitting are practically nil."
"In my experience, the moral argument is the most effective of all the arguments for the existence of God. I say this grudgingly because my favorite is the cosmological argument....But the moral argument cannot be so easily brushed aside For every day you get up you answer the question of whether there are objective moral values and duties by how you live....No, we cannot truly be good without God; but if we can in some measure be good, then it follows that God exists."
Although most skeptics want to argue the issue intellectually there is usually an emotional reason for their unbelief.
Also he points out that if the early church had invented the story of Jesus' resurrection they would not have had the first discoverers of the empty tomb be women. Women were not credible witnesses in that day and time.
November 16, 2013
Dr. Craig has written an enormously helpful handbook and study-tool, that is a compilation of decades of his laborious work in defending the Christian faith apologetically - written for the layman, in that it is easy to understand, accessible, and also engaging. As I've been a big fan of Dr. Craig and Reasonable Faith for some time now, I've watched almost twenty of his previous debates with numerous worthy philosophers, historians, physicists, ethicist, humanists, Muslims, and atheists, spanning the course of a couple decades, and was thoroughly familiar with the arguments that Dr. Craig laid out in On Guard.
Even still, the format is very constructive, as Craig outlines the Kalam cosmological argument, the argument from contingency (Leibniz's cosmological), the moral argument, the fine-tuning argument, and the argument from the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Craig also deals with Negative arguments against theism (positive for atheism) such as the problem of suffering.
In short, this book was wonderful to read through, as it also contained a little biographical insight into Craig's life which I found fascinating. This is a handbook to be kept, studied, an referred to, as it offers practical insight into ironclad logical arguments for the existence of God. Every Christian would do well to grab this introduction to Christian philosophical apologetic with On Guard
Craig is one of the finest Christian philosophers and Christian apologists of our day, and this book shows his skill to make the positive arguments accessible and easy to understand for the lay-Christian so as to get them equipped and "on guard!"
Brent McCulley (11/15/2013)
Even still, the format is very constructive, as Craig outlines the Kalam cosmological argument, the argument from contingency (Leibniz's cosmological), the moral argument, the fine-tuning argument, and the argument from the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Craig also deals with Negative arguments against theism (positive for atheism) such as the problem of suffering.
In short, this book was wonderful to read through, as it also contained a little biographical insight into Craig's life which I found fascinating. This is a handbook to be kept, studied, an referred to, as it offers practical insight into ironclad logical arguments for the existence of God. Every Christian would do well to grab this introduction to Christian philosophical apologetic with On Guard
Craig is one of the finest Christian philosophers and Christian apologists of our day, and this book shows his skill to make the positive arguments accessible and easy to understand for the lay-Christian so as to get them equipped and "on guard!"
Brent McCulley (11/15/2013)
October 21, 2010
An excellent, though basic, primer on Christian apologetics, particularly for those without a background in rhetoric, logic or argumentation. The first half of the book is useful for any believer, Christian or not. The second half of the book deals specifically with evidentiary arguments for Christianity specifically. Craig's explanations of the kalam and fine-tuning logical proofs are particularly enlightening and his discussion of his own conversion are quite interesting.
Anyone who has seen Craig in action will agree that he is a phenomenal debater (whether you agree with him or not), and this book is an excellent start to others wishing to engage in apologetics. At the very least, it will teach you how to identify what arguments are actually being raised and what the proper approach is to each argument. The argument maps at the end of each chapter are particularly useful as a study guide.
It's a book worth reading for anyone, believer or non-believer, to at least understand what arguments are being raised in the modern God debate. Highly recommended!
Anyone who has seen Craig in action will agree that he is a phenomenal debater (whether you agree with him or not), and this book is an excellent start to others wishing to engage in apologetics. At the very least, it will teach you how to identify what arguments are actually being raised and what the proper approach is to each argument. The argument maps at the end of each chapter are particularly useful as a study guide.
It's a book worth reading for anyone, believer or non-believer, to at least understand what arguments are being raised in the modern God debate. Highly recommended!
September 29, 2016
This book is an excellent overview of all of the main arguments in favor of God's existence. It addresses common objections and how Christians can offer a reasoned response.
I disagree with Craig that the witness of the Holy Spirit should be the foundation of faith in Jesus. If someone of a different belief system said that that was their reason for holding a set of beliefs, would we find that position fair and objective? I don't think we would.
Given that Christianity does have good reasons to believe it though, the Holy Spirit can in fact be known. The resurrection evidence seems quite strong to me, especially when you examine messianic expectations in Judaism at that time.
God bless, and enjoy the read, wherever your are in your spiritual walk or lack thereof.
I disagree with Craig that the witness of the Holy Spirit should be the foundation of faith in Jesus. If someone of a different belief system said that that was their reason for holding a set of beliefs, would we find that position fair and objective? I don't think we would.
Given that Christianity does have good reasons to believe it though, the Holy Spirit can in fact be known. The resurrection evidence seems quite strong to me, especially when you examine messianic expectations in Judaism at that time.
God bless, and enjoy the read, wherever your are in your spiritual walk or lack thereof.
May 11, 2017
William Lane Craig is the first person I had ever listened to regarding apologetics. I immediately wanted to read Reasonable Faith, but was advised to read On Guard first as it is more of a primer to the deeper explanations Reasonable Faith brings up. I'm glad I read this first. As it is, On Guard gives you great background on the cosmological arguments, the reasons God exists, the fine tuning of the universe, the moral case for God's existence and the case for Jesus' resurrection. It will be enough to get you started for sure and a great deal to (slowly) chew on as you enter the realm of Christian Apologetics
September 1, 2015
some issues: fails to cite other authors' work; uses straw person arguments and other logical fallacies; particularly weak (as well as insensitive and appropriative) in the chapter on suffering; inappropriate use of the Holocaust and Nazi comparisons to advance points; overall tone is defensive and lacking love, humility, or compassion; misrepresents or oversimplifies others' theories and opposing points of view.
September 2, 2014
Too self-contradicting, too arrogant. If Craig is really the greatest apologist of our generation (as the book echoes repeatedly) then modern Christianity is in some serious trouble. My opinion hit bottom when Craig dismisses Christian scholars who take a critical approach to studying NT/early church texts because they apparently just hype of their credentials too much... Craig should re-read the first chapter of his book.
March 7, 2018
Finally. Finished. I put this one down for months, picked it up, put it down, you get the idea. This book is meant for study, and I just didn’t devote the time to study it as I was hoping it would be more straight forward. His arguments lost me a lot or I felt bored. However, I did find parts more interesting than others - especially the last chapter, and I appreciate the flowcharts.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 311 reviews