The bill is always great questions are coming in to reasonablefaith.org, always encourage

people to look through our archives because more than likely you're going to find your

question addressed in defenders are the podcast that we do are a question of the week archive.

You usually pick one question per week, but we get some more and occasionally we like to

look at some of the additional questions that we haven't had a chance to address specifically.

This one says, dear Dr. Craig, I've come across your article does God exist in regards

to the existence of God from what I came to understand. Your main idea was that God is the

explanation or reason for the existence of everything. Does your conclusion regard the fact that

we as human beings who seek an answer either by faith or logic and reason are using God as a

scapegoat in order to answer the question of how it came to be? Are we selfish to just accept

the existence of our universe, out of ourselves by believing in something that has no physical

proof of existence? Wouldn't we just have insufficient evidence in regards to the existence of God?

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. Okay, well I don't think that in offering

arguments for God's existence like the Leibnizian cosmological argument to which I think he's

referring. We're doing anything selfish or lazy or acting on insufficient evidence. The question

seems to assume that any evidence for the existence of God has to be physical proof of his existence

and I would simply deny that emphatically. You can have philosophical arguments for God's

existence that I think are quite persuasive even if they're not physical proofs of existence.

So the question will be simply are the premises of the argument more plausibly true than false

and is the argument logically valid? And if they are, then it seems to me that you have a good

reason to accept God as the best explanation for why anything at all exists. So basically I'm

saying you can't refute an argument by saying that accepting the conclusion is selfish. The

...