An Evaluation of William Craig and Armstrong's Debate on the Existence of God

Document Type : Original Article


PHD in philosophy and theology, university of Qom, Qom, Iran.


William Craig has sought to defend theism by participating in numerous debates. In a debate with the American philosopher Sinnott Armstrong, which is also published in a book entitled "God", Craig in his first reason tries to prove the existence of God by denying "real infinity" and relying on the concept of beginning and "the need of every beginning for a cause". On the other hand, he takes Big Bang as a witness to his claim, but Armstrong rejects Craig's argument by referring to the existence of real infinity in the outside world and the existence of scientific evidence to negate the implication of the Big Bang on the beginning of the world. Based on this, when it is not possible to properly use experimental evidence as a proof of theological reasoning, such methods can put the belief in God in crisis. Therefore, lack of establishing the correct interaction between theology and science can be considered one of the most important weaknesses of Craig's argument on the existence of God. Finally, by introducing a scientific model, it is possible to provide a solution to establish a correlation between science and theology in such a way that theological evidence matches with experimental evidence and external truth, and no contradiction threatens the belief in God.


  1. Barbour, I. (1362 SH). Religion and Science (Trans. Bahauddin Kh.). Tehran: Academic Publishing Center.
  2. Craig, W. L. & Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2004). God? A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist. Oxford University Press.
  3. David, H. (1964). On the Infinite. In: Philosophy of Mathematics, ed. With an Introduction by Paul Benacerraf and Hillary Putnam. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.
  4. Fred, H. (1975). Astronomy and Cosmology. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
  5. Javadi Amoli, A. (2016). Explanation of God's Proofs, fifth edition, Asra, Qom.
  6. Kai, N. (1971). Reason and Practice. New York: Harper & Row.
  7. Lowe, E. J. (1998). The Possibility of Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  8. Lowe, E. J. (2009). More Kinds of Being: A Further Study of Individuation, Identity, and the Logic of Sortal Terms. West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.
  9. Lowe, E. J. (2014). Grasp of Essences versus Intuitions: An Unequal Contest. In: A. R. Booth & D. P. Rowbottom (Eds.), Intuitions (pp. 256-268): Oxford University Press.
  10. Lowe, E. J. (1998). The Possibility of Metaphysics: Substance, Identity and Time, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  11. Mihretu, P. G. (2021). Metaphysics, Natural Science and Theological Claims. E. J. Lowe’s Approach, An International Journal for Philosophy of Religion and Philosophical Theology.
  12. Morganti, M., & Tahko, T. E. (2017). Moderately Naturalistic Metaphysics. Synthese, 194(7), pp. 2557-2580.
  13. Sadr al-Motaallehin, (1981). Al-Hikma al-Muttaaliyyah fi al-Asfar al-Aqliya, vol. 3, third edition, Beirut: Dar al-Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi.
  14. Stoeger W. R. (1998). Contemporary Cosmology and Its Implications for the Science, Religion Dialogue. In: Physics, Philosophy and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding, edited by Russel, R. J., Stoeger, W. R. and Coyne, G. (Vatican Observatory).
  15. Vaez Javadi, I. (1362 SH). Hoduth and Qi dam. Tehran: University of Tehran Publishing and Printing Institute.