OnGuard ArgumentMaps Images

Argument Maps and Images
ON GUARD Published by David C. Cook 4050 Lee Vance View Colorado Springs, CO 80918 U.S.A. David C. Cook Distribution Canada 55 Woodslee Avenue, Paris, Ontario, Canada N3L 3E5 David C. Cook U.K., Kingsway Communications Eastbourne, East Sussex BN23 6NT, England David C. Cook and the graphic circle C logo are registered trademarks of Cook Communications Ministries. All rights reserved. Except for brief excerpts for review purposes, no part of this book may be reproduced or used in any form without written permission from the publisher. 2010 William Lane Craig The cartoon by Mary Chambers in chapter one is reprinted with the artists permission. The Team: Brian Thomasson, Karen Lee-Thorp, Jaci Schneider, and Karen Athen Cover Design: Amy Kiechlin Cover Photos: iStockphotos, royalty-free Sketches: Luke Flowers
Chapter 1, image 1
Chapter 1, image 2
Sample argument map
pro
Con
1. All men are mortal.
Biological evidence shows that human organisms eventually die.
2. Socrates is a man.
Socrates was just a mythological figure.
Both Plato and Aristotle refer to Socrates as a real person.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
WHAT IS APOLO GETICS?
Chapter 1
J
27
On Guard-int-R3.indd 27
6/15/10 11:40 AM
Chapter 2, image 1
Chapter 2, image 2
necessarily, and all these things are just different configurations of matter. The problem with this suggestion is that, according to the standard model of subatomic physics, matter itself is composed of tiny fundamental particles that cannot be further broken down. The universe is just the collection of all these particles arranged in different ways. But now the question arises: Couldnt a different collection of fundamental particles have existed instead of this one? Does each and every one of these particles exist necessarily?
I II III
u
up Quarks
c
charm
t
top
g
photon
d
down
s
strange
b
bottom
g
gluon
ne
electron neutrino Leptons
nm
muon neutrino
nt
tau neutrino
Bosons
weak force
e
electron
m
muon
t
tau
weak force
Chapter 3, image 1 Notice what the atheist cannot say at this point. He cannot say that the
elementary particles are just configurations of matter which that could have been different, but that the matter of which the particles are composed exists necessarily. He cant say this, because elementary particles arent composed of anything! They just are the basic units of matter. So if a particular particle doesnt exist, the matter doesnt exist. Now it seems obvious that a different collection of fundamental particles could have existed instead of the collection that does exist. But if that were the case, then a different universe would have existed.
WHY D OES ANYTHING AT ALL EXIST?
61
leibnizS CoSmologiCal argument
pro
Con
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
Then God must have a cause to explain Him.
No, God exists by the necessity of His own nature.
This is a self-evident principle: story of finding a ball in the woods.
The universe is an exception to this principle.
Making the universe an exception is arbitrary and commits the taxicab fallacy. It is not arbitrary, since it is impossible for the universe to have an explanation.
Youre assuming the universe is all there is, which begs the question in favor of atheism.
64
On Guard
Chapter 3
6/15/10 11:41 AM
leibnizS CoSmologiCal argument (cont.)
pro
Con
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. This is logically equivalent to the atheists own statement that if God does not exist, the universe has no explanation The universe does not exist necessarily, since different elementary particles could have existed. As the cause of space and time, this being must be an unembodied, transcendent Mind. I withdraw the statement. The universe exists by a necessity of its own nature.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
This follows from 1 and 3. 5. Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.
This follows from 2 and 4.
W H Y D OES ANYTHING AT ALL EXIST?
Chapter 3
J
65
6/15/10 11:41 AM
Chapter 4, image 1
Chapter 4, image 2
Chapter 4, image 3
Chapter 4, image 4 (fig.1)
Chapter 4, image 5 (fig. 2)
the Kalam CoSmologiCal argument
pro
Con
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Physics gives examples of things coming from nothing.
Something cannot come from nothing.
The vacuum is not nothing.
Otherwise, anything and everything could come from nothing.
Experience confirms this truth.
Chapter 4
102 J
On Guard
6/15/10 11:41 AM
the Kalam CoSmologiCal argument (cont.)
pro
Con
2. The universe began to exist. An actually infinite number of past events cannot exist. Mathematics establishes only a universe of discourse. We dont understand infinity. Infinity is mathematically well understood. Your absurd situations are what we should expect if an actual infinite exists. Mathematics proves that it can.
This reply doesnt resolve the absurdities.
A series formed successively cannot be actually infinite. This reply commits the fallacy of composition. If it could, absurdities would result. Increasing disparities would vanish. One would have finished already.
From any past point we can reach the present.
Chapter 4
W H Y DID THE UNIVERSE BEGIN? J 103
6/15/10 11:41 AM
the Kalam CoSmologiCal argument (cont.)
pro
Con
Expansion of the universe.
Nonstandard models of the origin of the universe exist.
Viable nonstandard models also predict a beginning.
Thermodynamics of the universe.
Models aimed at avoiding a beginning exist.
These models fail to avoid a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
This follows from 1 and 2.
The universe caused itself.
Then the universe would have to exist before it came to exist. This cause is an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful Personal Creator.
Chapter 4
104 J
On Guard
6/15/10 11:41 AM
Chapter 5, image 1
Chapter 4
Chapter 5, image 2
Chapter 5, image 3
the deSign argument
pro
Con
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
Fine-tuning is a scientific fact.
These are the only alternatives for explaining fine-tuning.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
Not physical necessity.
The constants and quantities are independent of natures laws. A TOE doesnt explain everything. M-theory fails to predict a life-permitting universe.
A TOE will explain them.
W H Y I S T H E U N I V E RSE FINE -TUNED FOR LIFE? J
Chapter 5
125
6/15/10 11:41 AM
the deSign argument (cont.)
pro
Not chance.
Con
Some universe must exist, no matter how improbable. But whichever universe exists, it will probably not be life-permitting. We can observe only lifepermitting universes, so no explanation is needed. This truism does not remove the need for an explanation. Many worlds hypothesis MWH may still require fine-tuning. There are good reasons to reject MWH.
The multiverse is finite.
Invasion of the Boltzmann brains.
3. Therefore, it is due to design. Who designed the Designer?
This follows from 1 and 2. To recognize an explanation as the best, you dont need an explanation of the explanation. Mind is simpler than the universe.
Chapter 5
126 J
On Guard
6/15/10 11:41 AM
Chapter 6, image 1
Chapter 6, image 2
the moral argument
pro
Con
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Without God naturalism is true, and morality is illusory. The issue is not belief in God, but the existence of God.
How dare you say all atheists are bad people!
Euthyphro Dilemma Gods nature is the Good, and Gods will necessarily expresses His nature. Atheistic moral platonism AMP is unintelligible, has no basis for duty, and is improbable. Humanism Humanism is an arbitrary and implausible stopping point.
Chapter 6
C A N W E BE G O OD WITHOUT G OD? J 145
6/15/10 11:41 AM
the moral argument (cont.)
pro
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Con
Moral experience reveals this.
Sociobiological account invalidates moral experience.
SBA doesnt undermine the truth of moral beliefs. SBA doesnt undermine the justification of moral beliefs.
SBA assumes atheism is true.
SBA is selfdefeating.
3. Therefore, God exists.
146
On Guard
Chapter 6
6/15/10 11:41 AM
Chapter 7, image 1
Chapter 7, image 3
Chapter 7, image 4
the problem of Suffering
pro
Con
Logical version: God exists and Suffering exists are logically inconsistent. Theres no explicit contradiction between them.
The contradiction is implicit.
No implicit contradiction has been proven.
A world with suffering may be preferable to a world without suffering.
Human freedom entails that God cannot create just any world He desires.
It is logically impossible to make someone freely do something.
Proof that they are consistent: Possibly God could not create a world with this much good but less suffering, and God has good reasons to permit the suffering.
Chapter 7
174 J
On Guard
6/15/10 11:41 AM
the problem of Suffering (cont.)
pro
Con
Evidential version: God exists is improbable given the suffering in the world.
It is improbable that God has good reasons for permitting suffering. We are not in a position to make such a probability judgment. Relative to the full scope of the evidence, Gods existence is probable. Christianity entails doctrines that increase the probability of the coexistence of God and suffering.
(1) The purpose of life is not happiness but the knowledge of God; (2) Mankind is in rebellion to God and His purpose; (3) Gods purpose spills over into eternal life; (4) Knowing God is an incomparable good.
Emotional problem: Atheism of rejection
Meditate on the cross of Christ.
Chapter 7
WHAT AB OUT SUFFERING? J 175
6/15/10 11:41 AM
Chapter 8, image 1
Chapter 8, image 2
Chapter 8, image 3
Chapter 8, image 4
Chapter 9, image 1
Chapter 9, image 2
Chapter 9, image 3
Chapter 9, image 4
Chapter 9, image 5
Chapter 10, image 1
Chapter 10, image 2
religiouS pluraliSm objeCtion
pro
Con
It is arrogant and immoral to claim that only one religion is true. This is a fallacious argument ad hominem.
What else can I do but believe what I think is true? The religious pluralist thinks he alone is right and so is then also arrogant and immoral.
People believe in the religion of their own culture. As an argument for pluralism, this commits the genetic fallacy. The religious pluralists view is similarly influenced.
A loving God wouldnt send people to hell. People freely separate themselves from God against His will.
Chapter 10
284 J
On Guard
6/15/10 11:42 AM
religiouS pluraliSm objeCtion (cont.)
pro
Con
A just God wouldnt punish people forever. If sinning goes on forever, the punishment must go on forever. To reject God is a sin of infinite gravity and proportion.
Persons who are uninformed or misinformed about Christ cannot be condemned for their failure to believe in Christ. Such persons are judged on the basis of their response to general revelation, so that salvation on the basis of Christs death is universally accessible.
Chapter 10
DI D J ESUS RISE FROM THE DEAD? J 285
6/15/10 11:42 AM
INTE
religiouS pluraliSm objeCtion (cont.)
pro
Con
God is all-powerful and all-loving is inconsistent with Some people never hear the gospel and are lost.
There is no explicit contradiction between them. The contradiction is implicit. No implicit contradiction has been proven.
Theres no guarantee that a world of universal, free salvation is feasible to God.
A world of universal salvation might have overriding deficiencies.
It is logically impossible to make someone freely do something. Proof that they are consistent: Possibly God has arranged the world to have an optimal balance between saved and lost, and those who never hear the gospel and are lost would not have accepted if they had heard it. This possibility is implausible. A world so ordered by God would be externally indistinguishable from a world where peoples births were a matter of accident.
286
On Guard
Chapter 10
6/15/10 11:42 AM

OnGuard ArgumentMaps Images

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

OnGuard ArgumentMaps Images

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Argument Maps and Images

Sample argument map

1. All men are mortal.

Biological evidence shows that human organisms eventually die.

Socrates was just a mythological figure.

Both Plato and Aristotle refer to Socrates as a real person.

3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

WHAT IS APOLO GETICS?

WHY D OES ANYTHING AT ALL EXIST?

leibnizS CoSmologiCal argument

Then God must have a cause to explain Him.

No, God exists by the necessity of His own nature.

This is a self-evident principle: story of finding a ball in the woods.

The universe is an exception to this principle.

leibnizS CoSmologiCal argument (cont.)

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.

This follows from 2 and 4.

W H Y D OES ANYTHING AT ALL EXIST?

Chapter 4, image 4 (fig.1)

Chapter 4, image 5 (fig. 2)

Chapter 4, image 6 (fig. 3)

Chapter 4, image 7 (fig. 4)

Chapter 4, image 8 (fig. 5)

Chapter 4, image 9 (fig. 6)

Chapter 4, image 10 (fig. 7)

the Kalam CoSmologiCal argument

Something cannot come from nothing.

The vacuum is not nothing.

Otherwise, anything and everything could come from nothing.

Experience confirms this truth.

the Kalam CoSmologiCal argument (cont.)

This reply doesnt resolve the absurdities.

From any past point we can reach the present.

the Kalam CoSmologiCal argument (cont.)

Expansion of the universe.

Nonstandard models of the origin of the universe exist.

Viable nonstandard models also predict a beginning.

Thermodynamics of the universe.

Models aimed at avoiding a beginning exist.

These models fail to avoid a beginning.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This follows from 1 and 2.

The universe caused itself.

the deSign argument

Fine-tuning is a scientific fact.

These are the only alternatives for explaining fine-tuning.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

Not physical necessity.

A TOE will explain them.

W H Y I S T H E U N I V E RSE FINE -TUNED FOR LIFE? J

the deSign argument (cont.)

The multiverse is finite.

Invasion of the Boltzmann brains.

3. Therefore, it is due to design. Who designed the Designer?

the moral argument

How dare you say all atheists are bad people!

the moral argument (cont.)

Moral experience reveals this.

Sociobiological account invalidates moral experience.

SBA assumes atheism is true.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Chapter 7, image 2 (fig. 1)

Chapter 7, image 5 (fig. 2)