It's the reasonable faith podcast, reasonable faith with Duncan William Lane Craig, and I'm Kevin Harris.

Big variety of questions today. You're going to enjoy this. And by the way, we sure appreciate your giving to help support this ministry all over the world.

Anything that you can give, thank you. Go to reasonablefaith.org. You can give anytime, online, and it's much appreciated.

Let's go to the studio with Dr. Craig for some Q and A.

Dr. Craig from Jeff in Texas. He says, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts about a philosophical argument for the existence of God similar to the moral argument based on existence of meaning that seems apparent in human life.

Number one, if God does not exist, then there is no objective meaning for life. Number two, objective meaning is experienced in human life.

Three, therefore, God exists. The second premise is the one that would need the most support as it would be most prone to attack.

I think they're good arguments that can support premise to, for example, humans treat their children as if they were valuable, which they are humans approaching death, think about the existence of an afterlife.

They may not always conclude correctly, but they do consider it our communication with one another has meaning and similar arguments as those.

I don't hear the sort of argument used when apologists provide reasons for the existence of God, often here only the ontological and cosmological, teleological and moral arguments for God's existence.

Thanks for your work. It has bolstered my faith in giving me a greater burden for sharing the faith that was once for all deliberate at the saints, Jeff.

Yes. Well, thanks, Jeff, very much for those remarks. There are Christian philosophers who offer these sorts of existential arguments for God's existence. I think of Steve Evans, for example, at Baylor or Cliff Williams, who have written on these sorts of things.

And I think your argument is sound. It does seem to me that if God does not exist, then there is no objective meaning in life. And many, many atheists will admit this from Nietzsche to Russell to Sartre to Alex Rosenberg.

Secondly, though, I think you're right that objective meaning is experienced in human life. And your example of humans treating their children as if they are valuable reminds me of a video that Kevin and I did a podcast on by a young woman named Jennifer, who was raised as a scientific rationalist and atheist.

But when she gave birth to her own child, she said, I could not believe that this was just a mass of cells and that my love for this baby was just a chemical reaction in my brain. She said, I saw so clearly that those things are not true. So I think your second premise is correct. And therefore does follow that God exists. So yes, I think this is a good argument.

Here's another question, Dr. Craig, greetings in your debate with Christopher de Carlo. He asked if you could estimate your level of confidence in your belief in God, that if your belief was as likely as a universe with no God, or if it was higher, you said your belief was higher than 50, 50, but that you had no way of measuring whether it was highly probable or not.

Wouldn't this seem to be about most importance to the question and what you have spent your life debating? How on earth are we to accept that you find the existence of a God more probable when you have no way of knowing what more probable means?

Well, wait a minute. I never said I don't have any idea of what more probable means for something to be more probable than not means you have a greater than 50% chance, right?

Of being true. That's what it means to be more probable. But what I've refused to do was to quantify it and to say, yes, I'm 75% certain or it's 83% certain that God exists or 99% certain.

And I think anybody who does try to put those kind of numbers on it is being disingenuous and you ought to be very suspicious.

The fact is we can talk, I think, in only rough terms about this and saying, I think it's very probable that God exists, it's more probable than not, or things of that sort. And I think that's quite acceptable.

He says it appears your entire position is lost in relativism and greater evidence for what you argue against that if atheism is true, then everything is relative and nothing matters.

...