Welcome to Defenders, the teaching class of Dr. William Lane Craig, today, and excurses

on Natural Theology.

Part 7.

For more resources from Dr. Craig, go to reasonable faith.org.

We've now looked at the two premises of the argument from contingency for God's existence

that are under dispute.

And those were, as you recall, that everything that exists has an explanation of its existence,

either in the necessity of its own nature or in some external cause. Or, more simply, I said

we could reformulate that as every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence.

And then I offered a defense of the second premise that if the universe has an explanation

of its existence, that explanation is God.

And again, if you find that premise too jarring to suit your taste, that could be reformulated

as well. To a more modest premise, you could reformulate that as if the universe has an explanation of its existence, then that

explanation is a transcendent personal being.

You don't have to call it God if you don't want to, but this will be a metaphysically

necessary transcendent personal being which has created the universe. And then the defense that you would give of the premise

would be similar. So I think we have good grounds for thinking that these two premises are true,

and therefore if the universe exists, it has its explanation or ground in such a metaphysically

necessary transcendent being.

Now what can the atheist do at this point?

Well I think he does have one recourse left him, though it is a radical one.

He can retrace his steps, withdraw his objection to premise 1, and instead admit that, yes,

...