Appeared-to-Blogly

Natural Theology

This outline of the project of natural theology in a continual work in progress. The purpose is twofold: (1) Provide an taxonomic overview of the project of natural theology. (2) Provide a bibliographical resource guide to each topic and argument. The resource guide will by no means be exhaustive, but rather will reflect what I perceive to be the most influential or important (mostly contemporary) work on each topic (not my endorsement of them!). Many of the referenced works have critical replies, rejoinders and surrejoinders. It is beyond the scope of this page to cite them all. I periodically update and modify the page, so if you have suggestions or questions, please feel free to e-mail me at mcintosh dot chad at gmail dot com.

An Outline of Natural Theology

I. Preliminaries

  1. What is Natural Theology?
    *Def. The project of offering evidence, arguments, or reasons—independent of claims to divine revelation that are in principle untestable—to think that God exists

    1. Can We Do Natural Theology?
    2. Should We Do Natural Theology?
    3. Should We Want God to Exist?
  2.  Metaphilosophical Concerns of Natural Theology
    1. Does God’s Existence Need Proof?
      1. Religious Epistemology
        1. “Reformed” epistemology: belief in God as properly basic
        2. “Gethsemane” epistemology
        3. Other
      2. See also: The naturalness of belief in God
    2. On “Proving” that God exists
      1. The nature of “proof,” “arguments,” “evidence,” etc. in natural theology
      2. The nature of proof, arguments, etc. in general
        1. Argument types (deductive, C-inductive, P-inductive)
        2. What Makes for a Good Argument?
        3. Criteria for best explanation or hypothesis (historical and scientific or metaphysical)
    3. Bias in Natural Theology and Philosophy of Religion
    4. Making a Case for Theism
      1. Individual Arguments
      2. Cumulative Cases
      3. God as Best Explanation

II. A Taxonomy of Theistic Arguments

  1. Cosmological Arguments
    *Def: Arguments for the conclusion that God is the ultimate cause, ground, or explanation of the universe

    1. Three Main Types
      1. Kalam
        *Demonstrates the need for a first cause based on the finitude of the past
      2. Thomistic
        *Demonstrates the need for a first cause in terms of rank or kind (e.g., not dependent, necessary), not necessarily temporality
      3. Leibnizian
        *Demonstrates that God is the only sufficient reason or explanation for either some part or the whole of existence

        1. The principle of sufficient reason
        2. The principle of necessary reason
    2. Other Versions
      1. The modal cosmological argument
      2. The inductive cosmological argument
  2. Design Arguments
    *Def: Arguments for the conclusion that natural features of the universe itself or natural things within it are the product of design

    1. Forms of Design Arguments
      1. Analogical
      2. Deductive
      3. Abductive or inference to the best explanation
      4. Likelihood or probabilistic
    2. Putative Cases of Design
      1. General design in the hard sciences
        1. Chemistry and biology
        2. Physics and cosmology
      2. Specific explananda
        1. Origin of life
        2. Order and nomology
        3. Simplicity and Beauty (see The Argument Beauty and Aesthetics)
        4. Information
        5. Purpose and cognition
        6. Cosmic constants
        7. Mereology
    3. Justifying Design Inferences or Belief in Design
      1. Specified complexity
      2. Irreducible complexity
      3. Perceiving design
      4. Design discourse
  3. Axiological Arguments
    *Def: Arguments for the conclusion that God is the only adequate ground or explanation for the nature of value and morality

    1. Morality
      1. Moral Realism
        1. Defense of moral realism
        2. Critiques of non-theistic accounts of moral realism
        3. Critiques of moral relativism
      2. From morality to God
      3. The relationship between God and morality
    2. The Nature and Value of Persons
    3. Altruism and Supererogation
  4. Ontological Arguments
    *Def: A priori arguments for the conclusion that God’s existence follows from the very concept of God

    1. Distinctive Historical Voices
      1. Anselm
      2. Descartes
      3. Spinoza
      4. Leibniz
      5. Gödel
    2. Contemporary Voices
      1. Hartshorne and Malcolm
      2. Plantinga
      3. Maydole
    3. Defenses of the Possibility Premise
      1. The coherence defense (see the Coherence of Theism)
      2. The axiological defense (see Deontic Argument)
      3. Ontomystical defense (see Ontomystical Argument)
      4. Epistemic defense
  5. Noölogical and Epistemological Arguments
    *Def: Arguments for the conclusion that certain mental phenomena (I.e., consciousness, reason, knowledge) imply God exists

    1. Arguments from Consciousness
    2. The Argument from Reason
    3. The Argument from Proper Function
      1. Naturalism and teleology
    4. Arguments from Knowledge
      1. From knowledge to God
      2. Against naturalism
        1. Evolutionary argument against naturalism
        2. The incompatibility of naturalistic epistemology and realisms (scientific, material objects, first-person perspective)
    5. Arguments for Dualism & Life After Death
      1. A Priori arguments
      2. A Posteriori arguments
        1. Scientific (e.g., empirical, neuro-based arguments)
        2. Testimonial (e.g., NDEs, OBEs, historical, etc.)
  6. Conceptualist and Nomological Arguments
    *Def: Arguments for the conclusion that abstract objects or laws (natural or logical) imply that God exists

    1. The Conceptualist Argument
      1. The incompatibility of naturalism and abstracta
    2. The Laws of Nature
    3. The Transcendental Argument
  7. Religious Experience
    *Def: Arguments that conclude that religious experiences either require a religious explanation or justify theistic belief

    1. Personal Transformation
      1. God as the best explanation of a changed life or moral development
    2. Kinds andVeridicality of Religious Experience
      1. Credulity-based (Swinburne)
      2. Direct perception
        1. Sense perception (Alston)
        2. Numinous perception (Otto)
  8. Pragmatic Arguments
    *Def:  Arguments that justify belief in God on practical, prudential, and/or existential grounds

    1. Wager Arguments
      1. Pascal
      2. Mill and James
      3. Kierkegaard
    2. The Presumption of Theism
      1. The meaninglessness of life without God
      2. The naturalness of belief in God
  9. Arguments from Miracles and History
    *Def. Argues that there are, or it is rational to believe in, events (historical or contemporary) the best explanations for which invoke supernatural agency

    1. Arguments from Miracles: PhilosophicalDesiderata
      1. The nature and possibility of miracles
      2. Is it ever rational to believe in miracles?
      3. The confirmation of miracles
    2. Particular Miracles
      1. The virgin birth
      2. The resurrection
      3. Answered prayer
      4. Others
        1. Contemporary miracles
        2. Fulfilled prophecy
  10. Miscellaneous Arguments
    1. The Argument from Language
    2. The Argument Beauty and Aesthetics
    3. The Argument from Desire
    4. The Anthropological Argument
    5. The Ontomystical Argument
    6. Arguments from Teleology and free Will
    7. The Argument from Truth Anti-Realism
    8. The Omnificence Argument
    9. The Argument from Temporal Duration of Composite Substances
    10. The Consensus Gentium Argument
    11. The Deontic Argument
    12. The Argument from So Many Arguments

Resources

  • Can We Do Natural Theology? Defenses of natural theology: Sennett and Groothius (eds.), In Defense of Natural Theology: A Post-Humean Assessment (IVP, 2005). Alan Padgett, “Theologia Naturalis: Philosophy of Religion or Doctrine of Creation?” Faith and Philosophy 21/4 (2004), pp. 493-502. Del Ratzsch, “Natural Theology, Methodological Naturalism, and ‘Turtles All the Way Down'” Faith and Philosophy 21/4 (2004), pp. 436-455. Denys Turner, Faith, Reason, and the Existence of God (Cambridge, 2004). For a panoply of arguments against the possibility of natural theology (and responses to them), see Charles Taliaferro, “The Project of Natural Theology” in Craig and Moreland (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), ch. 1.
  • Should We Do Natural Theology? Stephen T. Davis, “What Good Are Theistic Proofs?,” in Louis Pojman, Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology (Wadsworth, 1987). Denys Turner, Faith, Reason, and the Existence of God (Cambridge, 2004). I have in mind here also authors who caution against a purely cerebral approach to natural theology, but are nonetheless enthusiastic about the rationality of belief in God; e.g., James Peters, The Logic of the Heart (Baker, 2009).
  • Should We Want God to Exist?Stephen T. Davis, “On Preferring that God Not Exist (Or That God Exist) – A Dialogue,” Faith and Philosophy (Forthcoming, 2014).
  • Religious Epistemology.  Douglas Geivett and Brendan Sweetman (eds.), Contemporary Perspectives on Religious Epistemology (Oxford, 1992). For a tidy outline of the project of religious epistemology, see William Lane Craig’s chapter “Religious Epistemology” in his and Moreland’s book, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (IVP, 2003), pp. 154-170.
  • “Reformed” epistemology: belief in God as properly basic. The seminal paper here is Plantinga’s “Is Belief in God Properly Basic?” Nous 15 (1981), pp. 41-51. Outstanding books are include Alvin Plantinga, God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God (Cornell, 1967), Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff, Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God (Notre Dame, 1984), in which is Plantinga’s chapter “Reason and Belief in God.” Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (Oxford, 2000). Kelly James Clark’s “Without Evidence or Argument: A Defense of Reformed Epistemology” is an excellent article-sized treatment of religious epistemology.
  • “Gethsemane” epistemology. See Paul Moser’s various works: The Elusive God: Reorienting Religious Epistemology (Cambridge, 2008). The Evidence for God: Religious Knowledge Reexamined (Cambridge, 2010). See the Symposium on Moser’s religious epistemology in Philosophia Christi 14/2 (2012).
  • Other. See Peter van Inwagen, “Is It Wrong Everywhere, Always, and for Anyone, to Believe Anything on Insufficient Evidence?” in The Possibility of Resurrection and Other Essays in Christian Apologetics (WestView, 1998), ch. 2. Richard Creel, “Agatheism: A Justification of the Rationality of Devotion to God,” Faith and Philosophy 10/1 (1993), pp. 33-48.
  • The nature of “proof,” “arguments,” “evidence,” etc. in natural theology. Excellent discussions on the nature of proof and arguments in the context of natural theology are: George Mavrodes, Belief in God: A Study in the Epistemology of Religion (Random House, 1970), 3-48. Terence Penelhum, Problems of Religious Knowledge (Herder & Herder, 1972). Stephen T. Davis, “What Good Are Theistic Proofs?,” in Louis Pojman, Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology (Wadsworth, 1987). A more thorough treatment is Davis’s in God, Reason, and Theistic Proofs (Eerdmans, 1997), pp. 1-12, 176-190. Brief but good discussions on the criteria of good arguments can be found in William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (Crossway, 3rd ed. 2008), pp. 51-56; “Arguing Successfully About God: A Review Essay of Graham Oppy’s Arguing about Gods,” Philosophia Christi 10 (2008), pp. 435-442. Alvin Plantinga’s new preface to his “Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments,” in Deane-Peter Baker (ed.), Alvin Plantinga (Cambridge, 2007), pp. 203-209. Timothy McGrew and John DePoe, “Natural Theology and the Uses of Argument,” Philosophical Christi 15/2 (2013), pp. 299-310.
  • What Makes for a Good Argument? In Acceptable Premises: A Epistemic Approach to An Informal Logic Problem (Cambridge, 2005), James Freeman argues that a good argument is one whose basic premises have a presumption in their favor. Many seem to think the problem of evil is a good test case here. See Peter van Inwagen, The Problem of Evil (Oxford, 2006), ch. 3; Neal Tagnazzini, “Exploring Evil and Philosophical Failure,” Faith and Philosophy 24/4 (2007), pp. 458-474.
  • Criteria for best explanation or hypothesis. Par for the course is Peter Lipton’s Inference to the Best Explanation (Routledge, ed. 2004). See also Paul Thagard, “The Best Explanation: Criteria for Theory Choice” The Journal of Philosophy 75 (1978), pp. 67-92. Gilbert H. Harman, “Inference to the Best Explanation” The Philosophical Review 74 (1965), pp. 88–95.
  • Historical Hypotheses. There is a difference in justifying a document’s historicity and justifying some historical explanation or hypothesis. The former usually makes reference to so-called “criteria of authenticity.” There have been volumes written on such criteria, but a good overview is Robert H. Stein’s “The ‘Criteria’ for Authenticity,” in R. T. France & David Wenham (eds.), Gospel Perspectives Vol. 1: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels (JSOT,1980), pp. 225-263. On the latter, much discussion seems to be owed to C. Behan McCullagh’s Justifying Historical Descriptions (Cambridge, 1984).
  • Scientific or Metaphysical Hypotheses. Relevant here are “theoretical” or “explanatory” virtues, such as simplicity, strength, fecundity, etc. See Scott Shalkowski, “Theoretical Virtues and Theory Construction,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 41 (1997), pp. 71-89. Richard Otte, “Theory Comparison in Science and Religion” in Clark and Rea (eds.), Reason, Metaphysics, and Mind (Oxford, 2012), pp. 86-99, 2012.Chs 1-4 of Richard Swinburne’s The Existence of God (Oxford, ed. 2004). See also God as Best Explanation.
  • Bias in Natural Theology and Philosophy of Religion. Paul Draper and Ryan Nichols, “Diagnosing Bias in Philosophy of Religion,” The Monist 96/3 (2013), pp. 420-446.
  • Making a Case for Theism. A variety of approaches to making a case for theism can be found in Steve Cowan (ed.), Five Views on Apologetics (Zondervan, 2000).
  • Cumulative Cases. Cumulative case exemplars are Richard Swinburne’s The Existence of God (Oxford, ed. 2004) and Alvin Plantinga’s “Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments.”
  • God as Best Explanation or Hypothesis. Gregory Dawes, Theism and Explanation (Routledge, 2009). Kelly James Clark, “The Explanatory Power of Theism,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 25 (1989), pp. 129-146. Clark’s paper is a nice overview of how Bayes’s theorem has been used in natural theology. R. Douglas Geivett, “Reflections on the Explanatory Power of Theism,” ch. 3 in Stan Wallace (ed), Does God Exist? The Craig-Flew Debate (Ashgate, 2003). Wilko van Holten’s “Theism and Inference to the Best Explanation” Ars Disputandi 2 (2002) is excellent, especially for its bibliographical strength.
  • Cosmological Arguments. For an overview of some recent issues and literature relevant to the cosmological argument, see David Beck, “The Cosmological Argument: A Current Bibliographical Appraisal” Philosophia Christi 2 (2002), pp. 283–304; David Alexander, Alexander, David. “The Recent Revival of Cosmological Arguments” Philosophy Compass 3/3 (2008), pp. 541–550. Bruce Reichenbach, The Cosmological Argument: A Reassessment (Charles C. Thomas, 1972). “Cosmological Argument,” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Alexander Pruss, “Some Recent Progress on the Cosmological Argument” (Presented at the Two Tasks Conference, 2006). For a historical exposition, see William Lane Craig, The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz (Wipf & Stock, 2001). An excellent survey of recent work on cosmological arguments is Gerardus Rutten, A Critical Assessment of Contemporary Cosmological Arguments: Towards a Renewed Case for Theism (Wöhrmann Print Service, 2012).
  • Kalam Cosmological Arguments. See William Lane Craig’s numerous writings. Major defenses are Craig, The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Wipf & Stock, ed. 2000); Craig and Quentin Smith, Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology (Oxford, 1995). Mark Nowacki, The Kalam Cosmological Argument for God (Prometheus, 2007). An excellent presentation is Craig’s “The Kalam Cosmological Argument,” in Reasonable Faith (Crossway, 3rd ed. 2008), ch. 3. A very up-to-date defense is Craig & James Sinclair, “The Kalam Cosmological Argument,” in Craig & Moreland (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), pp. 101-201. For a more accessible overview of the argument, see Craig, “The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe,” Truth: A Journal of Modern Thought 3 (1991), pp. 85-96. Robert Koons, “A New Kalam Argument: Revenge of the Grim Reaper,” Nous 48/2 (2012), pp. 256-267. Calum Miller, “A Bayesian Formulation of the Kalam Cosmological ArgumentReligious Studies (2014), pp. 1-14.
  • Thomistic Cosmological Arguments. Edward Feser, Aquinas (Oneworld, 2009), ch. 3. Gaven Kerr, Aquinas’s Way to God (Oxford, 2015). Contemporary arguments in the spirit of the Thomistic cosmological argument are: William Vallicella, A Paradigm Theory of Existence: Onto-Theology Vindicated (Kluwer, 2002). Timothy O’Connor, Theism and Ultimate Explanation: The Ultimate Shape of Contingency (Blackwell, 2008). O’connor’s argument is a sort of blend of the Thomistic and Leibnizian cosmological arguments. But because the structure is largely Thomistic and the conclusion is buttressed by Leibnizian considerations, I classify his argument as Thomistic. See his “And This All Men Call God” Faith and Philosophy 21 (2004), pp. 417-435.  Robert Koons, “A New Look at the Cosmological Argument” American Philosophical Quarterly 34 (1996), pp. 193-212; “Defeasible Reasoning, Special Pleading, and the Cosmological ArgumentFaith and Philosophy 18/2 (2000), pp. 192-203. Koons identifies his arguments as in line with Thomistic tradition but with a distinctly modal tint (as does O’Connor’s). See also Robert Maydole, “The Modal Third Way” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 47 (2000), pp. 1-28. For an unpublished version of this paper, see his “Aquinas’ Third Way Modalized.” Peter van Inwagen, “Necessary Being: The Cosmological Argument” in Metaphysics (Westview, 2002), pp. 115-133. Joshua Rasmussen, “Cosmological Arguments from Contingency,” Philosophy Compass 5/9 (2010), pp. 806-819.
  • Leibnizian Cosmological Arguments. Brian Leftow, “A Leibnizian Cosmological Argument” Philosophical Studies 57 (1989), pp. 135-155. The explanandum in Leftow’s paper is abstract objects, so could be seen as a type of conceptualist argument as well. Stephen T. Davis, “The Cosmological Argument and the Epistemic Status of Belief in God” Philosophia Christi 2 (1999). I can’t recommend more highly Alexander Pruss’s The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument,” in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), pp. 24-100. ok-length treatments are Bede Rundle’s critical, Why is there Something Rather than Nothing? (Oxford, 2004) and Pruss’s defense, The Principle of Sufficient Reason: A Reassessment (Cambridge, 2006). John Leslie, “A Proof of God’s Reality,” in Tyron Goldschmidt (ed.). The Puzzle of Existence: Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? (Routledge, 2014).
  • The Principle of Sufficient Reason. Pruss, The Principle of Sufficient Reason: A Reassessment (Cambridge, 2006). Two good article treatments are Pruss, “Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit: Arguments New and Old for the Principle of Sufficient Reason” (2002); “A Restricted Principle of Sufficient Reason and the Cosmological Argument” Religious Studies 40 (2004), pp. 165–179. Michael Della Rocca, “PSR,” Philosopher’s Imprint 10/7 (2010), pp. 1-13. Tyron Goldschmidt (ed.). The Puzzle of Existence: Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? (Routledge, forthcoming).
  • The Principle of Necessary Reason. John O’Leary-Hawthorne and Andrew Cortens, “The Principle of Necessary Reason,” Faith and Philosophy 10/1 (1993), pp. 60-67.
  • Modal Cosmological Argument. Brian Leftow, “A Modal Cosmological Argument,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 24 (1988), pp. 159-88. Richard Gale & Alexander Pruss, “A New Cosmological Argument” Religious Studies 35 (1999), 461–476. This may be the best place to cite Joshua Rasmussen’s work: “From States of Affairs to a Necessary Being,” Philosophical Studies 148/2 (2010), pp. 183-187; “A New Argument for a Necessary Being,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89/2 (2010), pp. 351-356. Brian Leftow, God and Necessity (Oxford, 2012), esp. ch. 23.
  • Inductive Cosmological Argument. Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God (Oxford, ed. 2004), pp. 133-152. Calum Miller, “A Bayesian Formulation of the Kalam Cosmological ArgumentReligious Studies (2014), pp. 1-14.
  • Design Arguments. The literature here is inexhaustible. One cannot but start with William Paley’s Natural Theology. An excellent anthlogy is Neil Manson (ed.), God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science (Routledge, 2003). For helpful overviews, see Manson’s introductory, idem. pp. 1-23. Elliot Sober, “The Design Argument” in William Mann (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Religion (Wiley-Blackwell, 2004), pp. 117-147. ( J. P. Moreland (ed.), The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer (IVP, 1994). William Dembski (ed.), Mere Creation (IVP, 1998). Other overviews of deign arguments are Del Ratzsch’s entry “Teleological Arguments for God’s Existence” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Trent Dougherty & Ted Poston, “A User’s Guide to Design Arguments,” Religious Studies 44/1 (2008), 99-110. Richard Swinburne, “Teleological Arguments,’ in The Existence of God (Oxford, ed. 2004), ch. 8. Bradley Monton, Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design (Broadview, 2007). Benjamin Jantzen, An Introduction to Design Arguments (Cambridge, 2014).
  • Putative Cases of Design. J. P. Moreland has a commendable typology of design phenomena in Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity (Baker, ed. 2004), pp. 43-75.
  • Design in Chemistry and biology. Much relevant literature here can be found in the aforementioned anthologies. Systematic book treatments are Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press, ed. 2003). Fazale Rana, The Cell’s Design (Baker, 2008). Michael Denton, Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe (The Free Press, 1998). Stephen C. Meyer, “Evidence for Design in Physics and Biology: From the Origin of the Universe to the Origin of Life,” in Michael Behe, William A. Dembski, and Stephen C. Meyer, Science and Evidence for Design in the UniverseThe Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute (Ignatius, 2001), pp. 53-111. Walter Bradley, “Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God? How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe.” Michael Dembski and Jonathan Wells, The Sign of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems (Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 2007). Stephen C. Meyer, The Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, 2010).
  • Design in Physics and Cosmology. Again, much relevant literature here can be found in the aforementioned anthologies. Important books are John Leslie, Universes (Routledge, ed. 1996 and Immortality Defended (Blackwell, 2007), ch. 5. John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford, 1986). See William Lane Craig’s review essay, “Barrow and Tipler on the Anthropic Principle vs. Divine Design,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38 (1988), pp.389-395, and his “The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle” in his The Logic of Rational Theism: Exploratory Essays (Edwin Mellen, 1990), pp. 127-153. Rob Collins is pioneering work in the area of fine-tuning. See especially his “The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe,” in Craig & Moreland (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), pp. 202-281; “The Case for Cosmic Design,” in Paul Draper (ed.) God or Blind Nature? Philosophers Debate the Evidence (Online book, 2007-2008).
  • Origin of Life. Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (Lewis & Stanley, 1992). Hugh Chandler, “Divine Intervention and the Origin of Life,” Faith and Philosophy 10/2 (1993), pp. 170-180. Chandler’s paper is noteworthy because it’s a philosophical rather than primarily scientific argument.
  • Order and Nomology. E.g., Diogenes Allen, “The Witness of Nature to God’s Existence and GoodnessFaith and Philosophy 1/1 (1984), pp. 27-43.
  • Information. Stephen C. Meyer, “DNA and the Origin of Life: Information, Specification, and Explanation,” in Darwinism, Design, and Public Education (2007), pp. 223-285; “DNA by Design: An Inference to the Best Explanation for the origin of Biological Design,” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 1/4 (1998), pp. 519-556. Walter Bradley and Charles Thaxton, “Information and the Origin of Life” in J. P. Moreland, The Creation Hypothesis (IVP, 1994), pp. 173-210. Alexander Pruss, “Programs, Bugs, DNA and a Design Argument,” Ch. 4 in Yujin Nagasawa (ed.), New Waves in Philosophy of Religion (Palgrave Macmillan 2009).
  • Purpose and Cognition. On purpose or teleology, see Nicholas Rescher (ed.), Current Issues in Teleology (UPA, 1986). Colin Allen, Marc Bekoff, & George Lauder (Eds.), Nature’s Purposes: Analyses of Function and Design in Biology (MIT, 1998), especially ch. 10. Mark Bedau, “Can Biological Teleology be Naturalized?” Journal of Philosophy 88 (1991), pp. 647-57. See Colin Allen’s “Teleological Notions in Biology” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. See See also Naturalism and Teleology and The Argument from Proper Function.
  • Cosmic constants. See Physics and cosmology.
  • Mereology. See John Kronen and Sandra Menssen, “The Argument from Wholes: A Classical Hindu Design Argument for the Existence of God,” Faith and Philosophy 30/2 (2013), pp. 138-158.
  • Specified Complexity. William Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities (Cambridge, 1998). See William Lane Craig’s positive review “The Design Inference” Human Events (July 23, 1999), p. 16. Brief but technical summary of Dembski’s design-inference criteria is “The Logical Underpinnings of Intelligent Design” in (co-ed., Michael Ruse) Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA (Cambridge, 2003).
  • Irreducible Complexity. Irreducible complexity
  • Perceiving Design. Del Ratzsch, “Perceiving Design,” in Neil Manson (ed.), God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science (Routledge, 2003).
  • Divine Discourse. Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, & Naturalism (Oxford, 2011), 236ff.
  • Defense of Moral Realism. Many of the books and articles cited in this section provide arguments for the justification of belief in and objectivity of morality, but here are three noteworthy treatments: David Brink, Moral Realism and the Foundations of Ethics (Cambridge, 1989). Russ Shafer-Landau, Moral Realism: A Defence (Oxford, 2003). David Enoch, Taking Morality Seriously: A Defense of Robust Realism (Oxford, 2011).Robert Audi, The Good and the Right: A Theory of Intuition and Intrinsic Value (Princeton, 2004) and, most excellently, Michael Huemer, Ethical Intuitionism (Palgrave Macmillan, 2006). Terrence Cuneo, The Normative Web (Oxford, 2007) and Ralph Wedgwood, The Nature of Normativity (Oxford, 2007). Both Cuneo and Wedgwood argue that there are irreducible normative facts, which entails moral realism.
  • Critiques of non-theistic moral realism. Gregory Ganssle, “Necessary Moral Truths and the Need for Explanation,” Philosophia Christi 2 (2000), pp. 105-12. An essential article is George Mavrodes, “Religion and the Queerness of Morality,” in Robert Audi & William J. Wainwright (eds.), Rationality, Religious Belief and Moral Commitment: Essays in the Philosophy of Religion (Cornell, 1986), pp. 213-226. Paul Copan, “Naturalism, and the Foundations of Morality,” in Robert Stewart (ed.), The Future of Atheism: Alister McGrath and Daniel Dennett in Dialogue (Fortress, 2008), 141-161; “Is Michael Martin a Moral Realist? Sic et Non,” Philosophia Christi 2 (1999), pp. 45-72; “Atheistic Goodness Revisited: A Personal Reply to Michael Martin,” Philosophia Christi 2/1 (2000), pp. 91-104; “Morality and Meaning Without God: Another Failed Attempt,” Philosophia Christi 6/1 (2004), pp. 295-304. John Hare, “Is There an Evolutionary Foundation for Human Morality?” in Philip Clayton & Jeffrey Schloss (eds.), Evolution and Ethics (Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 187-203. Michael Rea, “Naturalism and Moral Realism” inThomas Crisp, David VanderLaan, & Matthew Davidson (eds.), Knowledge and Reality: Essays in Honor of Alvin Plantinga (Kluwer, 2006), pp. 215-242. James M. Sias III, Naturalism and Moral Realism (MA Thesis, 2007).
  • Critiques of Relativism. An accessible and informed critique is Paul Copan’s True for You but Not for Me (Bethany House, revised ed. 2009). On a more popular level, see Francis Beckwith & Gregory Koukl, Relativism (Baker, 1998). Francis Beckwith, “Why I am Not a Moral Relativist,” in Norman Geisler & Paul Hoffman Why I am a Christian (Baker, 2001), pp. 15-29. Peter Kreeft, A Refutation of Moral Relativism (Ignatius, 1999); “A Refutation of Moral Relativism,” audio and transcript. A good philosophical anthology is Paul Moser & Thomas Carson (eds.), Moral Relativism: A Reader (Oxford, 2001). See especially chapters 9 & 10. For a good summary of problems with moral relativism, see Lewis Vaughn, Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues (W.W. Norton & Co, 2007).
  • Morality to God. On the moral argument in general, see C. Stephan Evans, “Moral Arguments for the Existence of God,” and Peter Byrne, “Moral Arguments for the Existence of God,” both in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Robert Adams, “Moral Arguments for Theistic Belief,” in The Virtue of Faith (Oxford, 1987), pp. 144-163. Paul Copan, “The Moral Argument” in Paul Copan & Paul K. Moser (eds.), The Rationality of Theism, (Routledge, 2003), pp. 149-74. Mark Linville, “The Moral Argument” in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), pp. 391-448. Christopher A. Shrock, “Three Flavors of Moral Argument for the Existence of God.” William Lad Sessions, “Coherence, Proper Basicality and Moral Arguments for Theism,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 22 (1987), pp. 119-137. This line of thought is also taken up by Copan and Linville. William Lane Craig, “The Indispensability of Theological Meta-ethical Foundations for Morality,” Foundations 5 (1997), pp. 9-12. Linda Zagzebski, “Does Ethics Need God?,” Faith and Philosophy 4 (1987), pp. 294-303. Stephen C. Layman, “God and the Moral Order,” Faith and Philosophy 19 (2002), pp. 304-16. William Alston, “What Euthyphro Should Have Said” in Craig (ed.), Philosophy of Religion: A Reader and Guide (Edinburgh, 2002), pp. 283-298. Jerry Walls and David Baggett, Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality (Oxford, 2011). A more general approach is Michael Murray, “Do Objective Ethical Norms Need Theistic Grounding?”. Mark C. Murphy, God and Moral Law: On the Theistic Explanation of Morality (Oxford, 2011). Angus Ritchie, From Morality to Metaphysics: The Theistic Implications of our Ethical Commitments (OUP, 2012). For how facts of evil and suffering can factor into a moral argument for God’s existence, see Douglas R. Geivett, Evil and the Evidence for God: The Challenge of John Hick’s Theodicy (Temple, 1993); Gordon Graham, Evil and Christian Ethics (Cambridge, 2001); Marilyn McCord Adams, “God Because of Evil: A Pragmatic Argument from Evil for Belief in God” in McBrayer and Howard-Snyder (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to the Problem of Evil, pp. 160-174. C. Stephen Evans, God and Moral Obligation (Oxford 2013). Evans focuses exclusively on objective obligations and duties, arguing they are best explained by theism.
  • God and Morality. A good survey here is John Hare’s God and Morality: A Philosophical History (Oxford, 2006). See also Hare’s Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry, “Religion and Morality.” Books that argue for such a connection are Philip Quinn, Divine Commands and Moral Requirements (Oxford, 1978); Robert Adams, Finite and Infinite Goods: A Framework for Ethics (Oxford, 2002). William J. Wainwright, Religion and Morality (Aldershot, 2005). See also Walls & Baggett, Murphy, and Ritchie in From Morality to God. William A. Lauinger, Well-Being and Theism: Linking Ethics to God (Continuum, 2012).
  • The Nature and Value of Persons. See William Sorely, Moral Values and the Idea of God (Cambridge, 1918). Illtyd Trethowan, Absolute Value: A Study in Christian Theism (Humanities, 1970). Robert Adams, Finite and Infinite Goods: A Framework for Ethics (Oxford, 2002). J. P. Moreland, “The Ethical Inadequacy of Naturalism,” Promise (May/June 1996), pp. 36-39. More developed is his The Recalcitrant Imago Dei: Human Persons and the Failure of Naturalism (SCM, 2009), pp. 143-164. Stuart Hackett, “The Value Dimension of the Cosmos: A Moral Argument” in William Lane Craig (ed.), Philosophy of Religion (Rutgers, 2002), pp. 149-154. Philip Quinn, “On the Intrinsic Value of Human Persons” in Persons: Human and Divine (Oxford, 2007), pp. 237-260. Stewart Goetz & Charles Taliafero, Naturalism (Eerdmans, 2008), ch. 4. Nicholas Wolterstorff, Justice: Rights and Wrongs (Princeton, 2008), esp. part III.
  • Altruism and Supererogation. On Altruism, see Colin Grant, Altruism & Christian Ethics (Cambridge, 2000). Jeffery Schloss, “Evolutionary Accounts of Altruism & the Problem of Goodness by Design” in William Dembski (ed.), Mere Creation (IVP, 1998), pp. 236-261. Alexander Pruss, “Altruism, Teleology and God” (2005).
  • Ontological Argument. The variety of approaches to and authors on the ontological argument makes it hard to narrow down the most important contributions. The sixties saw an explosion of literature on the ontological argument. Three books that came out of that decade are Alvin Plantinga (ed.), The Ontological Argument: From St. Anselm to Contemporary Philosophers (Doubleday Anchor, 1965). John Hick & Arthur McGill (eds.), The Many-Faced Argument: Studies on the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God (Wipf & Stock, 2009 reprint of 1967 ed.). Jonathan Barnes, The Ontological Argument (Macmillan, 1972). Much more recently is Graham Oppy, Ontological Arguments and Belief in God (Cambridge, 2007). Kevin Harrelson, The Ontological Argument from Descartes to Hegel (Humanity, 2008). For a very extensive historical and contemporary bibliography, see Raul Corazzon’s page, “History of the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God.” See also Graham Oppy’s SEP entry, “Ontological Arguments” as well as Kenneth Einar Himma’s “The Ontological Argument” in IEP. Charles Hartsnorne discusses 10 ontological arguments in ch. 2 of The Logic of Perfection (Open Court, 1962). A Highly recommended paper is John Baggaley, “The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God.” A very recent volume is Miroslaw Szatkowski, Ontological Proofs Today (Gazelle Distribution, 2012), which has a variety of new ontological arguments as well as new spins on old ones. For more general, article-length treatments, see Peter van Inwagen, “Necessary Being: The Ontological Argument” in Metaphysics (Westview, 2002), pp. 91-114. Stephen Davis, “The Ontological Argument” in Paul Copan & Paul Moser (eds.), The Rationality of Theism (Routledge, 2003), pp. 93-111. Brian Leftow, “The ontological Argument” in William Wainwright (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion (Oxford, 2007), pp. 80-115. Jason Megill and Joshua Mitchell, “A Modest Modal Ontological Argument” Ratio 22/3 (2009), 338-349.
  • Anselm’s Ontological Argument. Ian Logan, Reading Anselm’s Proslogion: The History of Anselm’s Argument and Its Significance Today (Ashgate, 2009). A. D. Smith, Anselm’s Other Argument (Harvard, 2014). Some technical papers sympathetic to Anselm’s argument include: Norman Malcolm, “Anselm’s Ontological Arguments,” Philosophical Review 69 (1960),pp. 41-62. Robert Adams, “The Logical Structure of Anselm’s Argument,” Philosophical Review80 (1971), pp. 28-54. Paul Oppenheimer & Edward Zalta, “The Logic of the Ontological Argument” in Philosophical Perspectives (1991), pp. 509-29; “Reflections on the Logic of the Ontological Argument,”Studia Neoaristotelica 4 (2007), pp. 28-35.
  • Descartes’ Ontological Argument. Good place to start: Lawrence Nolan, “Descartes Ontological Argument” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. See  the book symposium on Descartes’ argument, Joseph Margolis (ed.),  Fact and Existence (Oxford, 1969), especially Anthony Kenny’s essay. Margery Naylor Van Inwagen, Descartes’ Three Versions of the Ontological Argument (University of Rochester, 1969). William Forgie, “Existence Assertions and the Ontological Argument” Mind 83 (1974), pp. 260-262. Sylvia Crocker, “Descartes’ Ontological Argument and the Existing Thinker,” The Modern Schoolman 53/4 (1976), pp. 347-377. Michael Dougherty, “The Importance of Cartesian Triangles: A New Look at Descartes’s Ontological Argument,” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 10 (2002), pp. 35-62. Lawrence Nolan and Alan Nelson, “Proofs fir the Existence of God,” in Stephen Gaukroger (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Descartes’ Meditations (Blackwell, 2006), pp. 104-121. Georges Dicker, Descartes: An Analytical and Historical Introduction (Oxford, 2nd ed. 2013), pp. 221-227.
  • Spinoza’s Ontological Argument. Jarrett Charles. “Spinoza’s Ontological Argument,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 6 (1976), pp. 685-691. William Earl, ‘‘The Ontological Argument in Spinoza,’’ and ‘‘The Ontological Argument in Spinoza: Twenty Years Later,’’ in Marjorie Green (ed.), Spinoza: A Collection of Critical Essays (Notre Dame, 1979). Don Garrett, ‘‘Spinoza’s ‘Ontological’ Arguments,’’ Philosophical Review 88 (1979), pp. 198-223. A. Z. Bar-on, “The Ontological Proof: Spinoza’s Version in Comparison with Those of St. Anselm and Descartes,” in Rotenstreich and Schneider (eds.), Spinoza: His Thought and Work (Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1983). Martin Lin, “Spinoza’s Arguments for the Existence of God,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 75/2 (2007), pp. 269-297. Garrett and Lin do well to point out other arguments for the existence of God in Spinoza that rely on the PSR.
  • Leibniz’s Ontological Argument.Robert Adams, Leibniz: Determinist, Theist, Idealist (Oxford, 1994), chs. 4-6. David Blumfield, “Leibniz’s Ontological and Cosmological Arguments,” in Nicholas Jolley (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Leibniz (Cambridge, 1995). pp. 353-381. Barry Loewer, “Leibniz and the Ontological Argument,” Philosophical Studies 34 (1978), pp. 105-109.
  • Gödel’s Ontological Argument. Robert Adams, “Introductory Note to *1970. Ontological Proof.” In Kurt Gödel, Collected Works Volume III: Unpublished essays and lectures (Oxford, 1995), pp. 388-402. C. Anthony Anderson, “Some Emendations of Gödel’s Ontological Proof,” Faith and Philosophy 7/3 (1990), pp. 291-303. Frode Bjørdal, “Understanding Gödel’s Ontological Argument,” in Timothy Childers (ed.)., The Logica Yearbook 1998 (Filosofia, 1999), pp. 214-217. Rubens Randolph Goldman, Gödel’s Ontological Argument (University of California Berkeley, 2000). Alexander Pruss, “A Gödelian Ontological Argument Improved,” Religious Studies 45/3 (2009), pp. 347-353. James Baird, “God and Gödel: Gödelian Incompleteness in Mathematics and the Confirmation of Theism,” (1997). Robert Koons, “Sobel on Gödel’s Ontological Proof” Philosophia Christi 8 (2006), 235-247. See also Robert Maydole’s treatment of Gödel in “The Ontological Argument” in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 574-580.
  • Hartshorne: Charles Hartshorne, Man’s Vision of God and the Logic of Theism (Harper and Row, 1941); “The Formal Validity and Real Significance of the Ontological Argument,” Philosophical Review 53 (1944), pp. 225-245; The Logic of Perfection (Open Court, 1962), ch. 2. Anselm’s Discovery: A Re-Examination of the Ontological Proof for God’s Existence (Open Court, 1965). George Goodwin, The Ontological Argument of Charles Hartshorne (MT Scholars, 1978). Eugene Peters, “Charles Hartshorne and the Ontological Argument,” Process Studies 14/1 (1984), pp. 11-20. Donald Viney, Charles Hartshorne and the Existence of God (SUNY, 1985), ch. 4. Joshua Ernst, “Charles Hartshorne and the Ontological Argument,” Aporia 18/1 (2008), pp. 57-66. Malcolm: Norman Malcolm, “Anselm’s Ontological Arguments,” The Philosophical Review 69 (1960), pp. 41-62. James Tomberlin, “Malcolm on the Ontological Argument,” Religious Studies 8/1 (1972), pp. 65-70.
  • Alvin Plantinga. Alvin Plantinga, “The Ontological Argument” from God, Freedom, and Evil (Eerdmans, 1974). Plantinga’s most developed version appears in The Nature of Necessity (Oxford, 1974), pp. 196-221. A unique defense of the main possibility premise in Platinga’s S5 ontological argument is Alexander Pruss, “The Ontological Argument and the Motivational Center of Our Lives,” Religious Studies 46 (2010), 233-249.
  • Robert Maydole. Robert Maydole, “A Modal Model for Proving the Existence of God,” American Philosophical Quarterly 17 (1980), pp. 135-142; “The Modal Perfection Argument for the Existence of a Supreme Being,” Philo 6 (2003), pp. 299-313. “The Ontological Argument,” in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), pp. 553-592.
  • Epistemic Defense. C. A. McIntosh, “Keeping Up Appearances: A Defense of Modal ‘Appears Claims'”. Email me for copy.
  • Arguments from Consciousness.J. P. Moreland, Consciousness and the Existence of God (Routledge, 2008); “The Argument from Consciousness,” in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), pp. 282-234. See his popular summary, “Argument from Consciousness.” Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God (Oxford, ed. 2004), pp. 192-212. For a less technical version, see his Is There A God? (Oxford, 1996), pp. 69-94. More recent is Swinburne, “The Argument from Souls to God,” Religious Studies 51/3 (2015), pp. 293-305. Charles Taliaferro, Consciousness and the Mind of God (Cambridge, 2005). Stuart Goetz & Charles Taliaferro, “An Argument from Consciousness and Free Will,” in Paul Draper (ed.) God or Blind Nature? Philosophers Debate the Evidence (Online book, 2007-2008). Robert Adams, “Flavors, Colors, and God” in The Virtue of Faith (Oxford, 1987), pp. 243-262. Adams calls his argument “a version of the argument from consciousness,” but it is essentially the argument from qualia for dualism presented as an argument for theism. See also Arguments for Dualism and Life After Death.
  • The Argument from Reason. James Ross, “Immaterial Aspects of Thought,” The Journal of Philosophy 89 (1992), pp. 136-150; Ross, Thought and World: The Hidden Necessities (Notre Dame, 2008), ch. 6. Victor Reppert, C. S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason (IVP, 2003); Philosophia Christi 5/1 (2003): Symposium on The Argument from Reason; “The Argument from Reason” in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), pp. 344-390; “The Argument from Reason,” (1998). William Hasker, “What is Naturalism? And Should We Be Naturalists?” Philosophia Christi 15/1 (2013), pp. 21-34. Stewart Goetz, “The Argument from Reason,” Philosophia Christi 15/1 (2013), pp. 47-62. Edward Feser, “Kripke, Ross, and the Immaterial Aspects of Thought,” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 87 (2013), pp. 1-32.
  • The Argument from Proper Function. See Mark Talbot, “Is it Natural to Believe in God?” Faith and Philosophy 6/2 (1989), pp. 155-171. Alvin Plantinga, Warrant and Proper Function (Oxford, 1993), especially Ch. 11. Alvin Plantinga & Michael Tooley, Knowledge of God (Oxford, 2008), pp. 20-30. A very nice presentation of the argument from proper function is in James Anderson’s, “If Knowledge then God: The Epistemological Theistic Arguments of Plantinga and Van Til,” Calvin Theological Journal (2005).
  • Naturalism and Teleology. See Purpose and Cognition.
  • From Knowledge to God. See James Anderson’s fine article, “If Knowledge then God: The Epistemological Theistic Arguments of Plantinga and Van Til,” Calvin Theological Journal (2005). James Anderson, “The Theistic Preconditions of Knowledge: A Thumbnail Sketch, ” (2006). R. Scott Smith, Naturalism and Our Knowledge of Reality (Ashgate, 2012).
  • Incompatibility of Naturalism and Knowledge. Dallas Willard, “Knowledge and Naturalism,” in Craig & Moreland, Naturalism: A Critical Analysis (Routeledge, 2000), ch. 2. R. Scott Smith, Naturalism and Our Knowledge of Reality (Ashgate, 2012). See also the material listed in the notes above and below.
  • Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. First proposed in chapter 12 of Warrant and Proper Function, “Naturalism Defeated” (Cornell, 1993). See also his draft “An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.” A helpful volume is James Beilby (ed.), Naturalism Defeated? Essays on Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (Cornell, 2002). A revised version of the EAAN appears in Warranted Christian Belief (Oxford, 2000), pp. 227-40. Plantinga’s latest statements and defenses are: Alvin Plantinga, “Naturalism vs. Evolution: a Religion/Science Conflict?” in Paul Draper (ed.) God or Blind Nature? Philosophers Debate the Evidence (Online book, 2007-2008); Alvin Plantinga & Michael Tooley, Knowledge of God (Oxford, 2008); Plantinga “Content and Natural Selection,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research (2011) LXXXIII/2, pp. 435-458. See also Omar Mirza, “A User’s Guide to the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism,” Philosophical Studies 141/2 (2008), pp. 125-146; especially Troy Nunley, A Defense of Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (Dissertation, 2005). The latest and (presumably) last treatment is in Plantinga’s Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, & Naturalism (Oxford, 2011), Ch. 10. Greg Littmann, “Darwin’s Doubt Defended: Why Evolution Supports Skepticism,” Philosophical Papers 40/1 (2011): 81-103.
  • Incompatibility of Naturalist Epistemology and Realisms. Robert Koons, “The Incompatibility of Naturalism and Scientific Realism” and Michael Rea, “Naturalism and Material Objects” in Craig & Moreland, Naturalism: A Critical Analysis (Routeledge, 2000), chs. 3, & 5. Michael Rea’s chapter is a condensed version of his most excellent book, A World Without Design: The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism (Oxford, 2004). A good discussion of Rea’s argument is his “Naturalism and Ontology: A Reply to Dale Jacquette”,” Faith and Philosophy 22 (2005), pp. 343-357. R. Scott Smith, Naturalism and Our Knowledge of Reality (Ashgate, 2012). Lynn Rudder Baker, Naturalism and the First-Person Perspective (Oxford, 2013)
  • Dualism and Life After Death. Book-length defenses of dualism include: John Foster, The Immaterial Self (Routeledge, 1996). Stewart Goetz & Charles Taliafero, Naturalism (Eerdmans, 2008). William Hasker, The Emergent Self (Cornell, 2001). David Lund, The Conscious Self: The Immaterial Center of Subjective States (Humanity, 2005). J. P. Moreland & Scott Rae, Body & Soul (IVP, 2000). Richard Swinburne, The Evolution of the Soul (Oxford, revised edition 1997). John Smythies & John Beloff (eds.), The Case For Dualism (Charlottesville, 1989). Peter van Inwagen & Dean Zimmerman (eds.), Persons: Human and Divine (Oxford, 2007). Stewart Goetz and Mark C. Baker (eds.), The Soul Hypothesis: Investigations into the Existence of the Soul (Continuum, 2010). Robert Koons and George Bealer (eds.), The Waning of Materialism (Oxford, 2010). Paul Gocke (ed.), After Physicalism (Notre Dame, 2012).  Richard Fumerton, Knowledge, Thought, and the Case for Dualism (Cambridge, 2013). Richard Swinburne, Mind, Brain, and Free Will (Oxford, 2013). Andrea Lavazza and Howard Robinson (eds.), Contemporary Dualism: A Defense (Routledge, 2014). A tidy overview of a case that can be made for substance dualism can be found in Moreland & Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (IVP, 2003), pp. 228-246. Excellent papers defending dualism include: Brian Leftow, “Souls Dipped in Dust” in Kevin Corcoran (ed.), Soul, Body, and Survival: Essays on the Metaphysics of Human Persons (Cornell, 2001), 120-138. John Foster, “A Defense of Dualism” in The Case For Dualism (Charlottesville, 1989), pp. 1-23. Keith Yandell, “A Defense of Dualism,” Faith and Philosophy 12/4 (1995), pp. 548-566. Alvin Plantinga, “Against Materialism,” Faith and Philosophy 23/1 (2006), pp. 3-32. William G. Lycan, “Giving Dualism Its Due,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy (2008). For a thorough introduction including arguments pro and con, see Howard Robinson, “Dualism” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Dean Zimmerman, “Dualism in the Philosophy of MindEncyclopedia of Philosophy (MacMillan, 2nd edition), pp. 113-122; Scott Calef, “Dualism and Mind” in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Important naturalistic-friendly accounts of dualism are David Chalmers, The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory (Oxford, 1996). Though Chalmers might object to being called a full-fledged dualist, his arguments for the irreducibility of consciousness are important. One might also include Jaegwon Kim, Physicalism, or Something Near Enough (Princeton, 2005), where he concedes the irreducibility of qualia. For discussions on naturalists who defend dualisms, see William Lycan, “Recent Naturalistic Dualisms,” (2007) and Yujin Nagasawa, “Australian Dualisms.” These “naturalistic dualisms” receive severe chastisements from William Hasker, “How Not to be a Reductivist,” Progress in Complexity, Intelligence, and Design 2/3 (2003) and J. P. Moreland, “If You Can’t Reduce, You Must Eliminate: Why Kim’s Version of Physicalism isn’t Close Enough,” Philosophia Christi 7 (2005), pp. 463-473; Moreland, Consciousness and the Existence of God (Routeledge, 2008). On arguments for life after death, see J. P. Moreland & Gary Habermas, Beyond Death: Exploring the Evidence for Immortality (Wipf & Stock, ed. 2004). William Hasker, “Afterlife,” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. David Lund, Persons, Souls, and Death: A Philosophical Investigation of an Afterlife (McFarland, 2009).
  • A Priori Arguments for Dualism. Most philosophical defenses of dualism include a priori arguments. See especially Plantinga, Swinburne, and Yandell, on concievability arguments.
  • A Posteriori Arguments for Dualism. A nice overview is J. P. Moreland & Gary Habermas, Beyond Death: Exploring the Evidence for Immortality (Wipf & Stock, ed. 2004), in which both a priori and a posteriori arguments are presented. David Lund, Persons, Souls, and Death: A Philosophical Investigation of an Afterlife (McFarland, 2009), esp. Part II.
  • Scientific Arguments for Dualism. Robert Russell, Nancey Murphy, Theo Meyering, & Michael A. Arbib (eds.), Neuroscience and the Person: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action (Notre Dame, 2000). Joel Green, What About the Soul? Neuroscience and Christian Anthropology (Abingdon, ed. 2004) Mario Beauregard & Mario Beauregard, The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul (Harper, ed. 2008). Angus Menuge, “Is Downward Causation Possible? How the Mind Can Make a Physical Difference,” Philosophia Christi 11/1 (2009), pp. 93-110 and the literature cited therein. Andrew Clifton “An Empirical Case Against Materialism,” AntiMatters 3/2 (2009), pp. 65-98.
  • Testimonial Arguments for Dualism. One of the best studies of NDEs as evidence against naturalism is chapters 7-9 of J. P. Moreland & Gary Habermas, Beyond Death: Exploring the Evidence for Immortality (Wipf & Stock, ed. 2004). See also David Lund, Persons, Souls, and Death: A Philosophical Investigation of an Afterlife (McFarland, 2009), pp. 104-128. Chris Carter, Science and the Near-Death Experience: How Consciousness Survives Death (Inner Traditions, 2011). Holden, Greyson, and James, The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation (Praeger, 2009). See also Arguments from Miracles and History.
  • Conceptualist Argument. Quentin Smith, “The Conceptualist Argument for God’s Existence,” Faith and Philosophy 11 (1994), pp. 38-49. Robert Adams, Leibniz: Determinist, Theist, Idealist (Oxford, 1994), ch. 7. Alvin Platninga, “Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments,” section I arguments (a)-(c), pp. 210-213 in Deane-Peter Baker (ed.), Alvin Plantinga (Cambridge, 2007). John Byl, “Theism and Mathematical Realism,” Proceedings of the Association of Christians in the Mathematical Sciences (2001), pp. 33-48. See especially the work of Richard Brian Davis, who is pioneering work in this area: “God and Modal Concretism,” Philosophia Christi 10 (2008), pp. 37-54; “The Conceptualist Argument: A New Defense,” (forthcoming). For a defense of the coherence of grounding abstracta in God, see Greg Welty, An Examination of Theistic Conceptual Realism as an Alternative to Theistic Activism (Oxford, 2000). Richard Brian Davis, The Metaphysics of Theism and Modality (Peter Lang, 2001). James Anderson and Greg Welty, “The Lord of Non-Contradiction: An Argument for God from Logic,” Philosophia Christi 13/2 (2011), pp. 321-338. Anderson and Welty, “In Defense of the Argument for God from Logic,” hosted at EPS website. E. J. Lowe, “Naturalism, Theism, and Objects of Reason,” Philosophia Christi 15/1 (2013), pp. 35-45. J. P. Moreland, “A Conceptualist Argument for a Spiritual Substantial Soul” Religious Studies 49/1 (2013), pp. 35-43.
  • Incompatibility of Naturalism and Abstracta. J. P. Moreland, “Naturalism and the Ontological Status of Properties,” in Craig & Moreland, Naturalism: A Critical Analysis (Routeledge, 2000), ch. 4. Mark Steiner, The Applicability of Mathematics as a Philosophical Problem (Harvard, 2002). Russell Howell, “Does Mathematical Beauty Pose Problem for Naturalism?Christian Scholar’s Review (2007). Arguments here are independent of but buttressed by the conceptualist argument and vice versa.
  • Laws of Nature. Good but a bit dated is F. R. Tennant, “Theism and Laws of Nature,” The Harvard Theological Review 17/4 (1924), pp. 375-391. John Foster, The Divine Lawmaker: Lectures on Induction, Laws of Nature, and the Existence of God (Oxford, 2004), book based on his “Regularities, Laws of Nature, and the Existence of God,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 101 (2001), pp. 145-161. Del Ratzsch, “Nomo(theo)logical Necessity,” Faith and Philosophy 4/3 (1987), pp. 83-402. Richard Swinburne, “Relations Between Universals, or Divine Laws?” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 84/2 (2006), pp. 179-189. Nancy Cartwright, “No God, No Laws.” Philip Clayton, “Contemporary Philosophical Concepts of Laws of Nature: The Quest for Broad Explanatory Consonance,” in Watts (ed.), Creation: Law and Probability (Fortress, 2008), pp. 37-58. Danny Frederick, “A Puzzle About Natural Laws and the Existence of God,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion (2012).
  • Transcendental Argument. Ronney Mourad, Transcendental Arguments and Justified Christian Belief (University Press of America, 2005). Stuart Hackett, The Reconstruction of the Christian Revelation Claim (Baker, 1984), pp. 90-96. Hackett calls his argument “a conceptual argument,” but it more closely resembles the transcendental argument. Sebastian Heck, “Transcendental Arguments in Apologetics – The Current State of Affairs,” (2005). One of best analyses of transcendental arguments, in addition to some of the aforementioned epistemological arguments, is James Anderson, “If Knowledge then God: The Epistemological Theistic Arguments of Plantinga and Van Til,” Calvin Theological Journal (2005). David Reiter, “The Modal Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence,” The Confessional Presbyterian volume 7 (2011), pp. 147-152. Very thorough is Michael R. Butler, “The Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence.” John Frame, “Transcendental Arguments.” A handy outline of the argument is provided by Matt Slick, “The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God.”
  • Religious Experience. Before the argument became hot in recent analytic philosophy, there was William James’s The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902) and Rudolf Otto’s The Idea of the Holy (1917). Essential contemporary treatments are Swinburne and Alston. Some book-length treatments include: Keith Yandell, The Epistemology of Religious Experience (Cambridge, 1993). Caroline Franks Davis, The Evidential Force of Religious Experience (Oxford, 1999). Jerome Gellman, Experience of God and the Rationality of Theistic Belief (Cornell, 1997). Jerome Gellman, Mystical Experience of God: A Philosophical Inquiry (Ashgate, 2002). Kai-man Kwan, The Rainbow of Experiences, Critical Trust, and God: A Defense of Holistic Empiricism (Cntinuum, 2011). One of the best overall synopses I’ve read is in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, & David Basinger (eds.), Reason & Religious Belief (Oxford, 2nd ed. 1998), pp. 18-42. Accordingly, a good collection of essays on the topic is in their companion, Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings (Oxford, 2nd ed. 2001), pp. 5-64. A nice presentation is also given by C. Stephen Layman, Letters to Doubting Thomas: A Case for the Existence of God (Oxford, 2007), pp. 38-78. For some of the recent history and defensive strategies, see Kai-man Kwan, “Can Religious Experience Provide Justification for the Belief in God? The Debate in Contemporary Analytic Philosophy” Philosophy Compass 1/6 (2006), pp. 640–661. Two of the best systematic defenses are Douglas Geivett, “The Evidential Value of Religious Experience,” in Paul Copan & Paul Moser (eds.), The Rationality of Theism (Routeledge, 2003). Kai-man Kwan, “The Argument from Religious Experience,” in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), pp. 498-552. See also William Alston, “The Experiential Basis of Theism,” (2002). Alexander Pruss, “A Religious Experience Argument for the Existence of a Holy Transcendent Being,” (2001). Travis Dumsday, “Neuroscience and the Evidential Force of Religious Experience,” Philosophia Christi 10 (2008), pp. 137-163.
  • Personal Transformation. William Alston, “The Fulfillment of Promises as Evidence for Religious Belief” in Radcliffe and White (eds.), Faith in Theory and Practice: Essays on Justifying Religious Belief (Open Court, 1993), pp. 1-34. See also Paul Moser’s various works: The Elusive God: Reorienting Religious Epistemology (Cambridge, 2008). The Evidence for God: Religious Knowledge Reexamined (Cambridge, 2010). See the Symposium on Moser’s work in Philosophia Christi 14/2 (2012). Michael Rota, Taking Pascal’s Wager (IVP Academic, 2016), chs. 13-15.
  • Principle of Credulity. Richard Swinburne, “The Argument from Religious Experience,” ch. 13 in The Existence of God (Oxford, 2nd ed. 2004), pp. 293-327. A shortened version is his “The Evidential Value of Religious Experience” in Arthur Peacocke (ed.), The Sciences and Theology in the Twentieth Century (Notre Dame, ed. 1986), pp. 182-196.
  • Sense Peception. William Alston, Perceiving God: The Epistemology of Religious Experience (Corness, 1991).
  • Numinous Perception. Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy (1917).
  • Pragmatic Arguments. Jeff Jordan, “Pragmatic Arguments for Believing in God,” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. C. Stephen Evans, Subjectivity and Religious Belief (University Press Of America, 1982). Clifford Williams, Existential Reasons for Belief in God: A Defense of Desires and Emotions for Faith (IVP Academic, 2011). For a different approach, see Richard Creel, “Agatheism: A Justification of the Rationality of Devotion to God,” Faith and Philosophy 10/1 (1993), pp. 33-48.
  • Pascal’s Wager. Books include Nicholas Rescher, Pascal’s Wager: A Study Of Practical Reasoning In Philosophical Theology (Notre Dame, 1985). Jeff Jordan (ed.), Gambling on God: Essays on Pascal’s Wager (Rowman & Littlefield, 1994). Jeff Jordan, Pascal’s Wager: Pragmatic Arguments and Belief in God (Oxford, 2006). Michael Rota, Taking Pascal’s Wager (IVP Academic, 2016). See too Jordan’s entry “Pascal’s Wager,” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Noteworthy articles include Richard Swinburne, “The Christian Wager,” Religious Studies 4 (1969), pp. 217–228. Thomas V. Morris, “Pascalian Wagering,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 16 (1986), pp. 437–454. William Lycan and George Schlesinger, “You Bet Your Life: Pascal’s Wager Defended,” in Joel Feinberg (ed.), Reason and Responsibility (Wadsworth, 7th ed., 1989). Alexander Tabarrok, “Believe in Pascal’s Wager? Have I got a Deal for You!” Theory and Decision 48/2 (2000), pp. 123-128. Robert Peterson, “Pascal’s Wager: Logical Consistency and Usefulness as an Argument for the Existence of God,” Global Journal of Classical Theology 5/1 (2005). Joel Esala, “The Epistemology of Pascal’s Wager: A Christian Presuppositional Argument,” Reformed Perspectives Magazine 8/2 (2006). Though more similar to a Jamesian-style pragmatic argument, see Stephen T. Davis, “Pascal on Self-Caused Belief,” Religious Studies 27 (1991), pp. 27-37. Joshua L. Golding, Rationality and Religious Theism (Ashgate, 2003), ch. 1. Justin McBrayer, “The Wager Renewed: Believing in God is Good for You,” Science, Religion and Culture 1/3 (2014), pp. 130-140.
  • Mill and James’ Wager. A Mill’s wager, also discussed in Jordan (pp. 187ff), is similar to what is called “the presumption of theism” below. A systematic defense of the Jamesian wager is Jeff Jordan, Pascal’s Wager: Pragmatic Arguments and Belief in God (Oxford, 2006), pp. 164-187. L. Stafford Betty, “Going beyond James: A Pragmatic Argument for God’s Existence,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 49 (2001), pp. 69–84. Sami Pihlström, “Pragmatic and Transcendental Arguments for Theism: a Critical Examination,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 51/3 (2002). Philip Quinn, “Gale on a Pragmatic Argument for Religious Belief,” Philo 6/1 (2003).
  • Kierkegaard’s Wager. Robert Koons, “Faith, Probability, and Infinite Passion,” Faith and Philosophy 10 (1993), pp. 145-160.
  • Meaninglessness of Life without God. Tom Morris, Making Sense of It All: Pascal and the Meaning of Life (Eerdmans, 1992), esp. ch. 4. William LaneCraig, “The Absurdity of Life Without God,” from Reasonable Faith (Crossway 1994), pp. 51-75. J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City (Baker, 2004), pp. 115-132. Jerry Walls, Heaven: The Logic of Eternal Joy (Oxford, 2002), especially ch. 7. Stewart Goetz, The Purpose of Life: A Theistic Perspective (Continuum, 2012). Joshua Seachris and Stewart Goetz (eds.), God and Meaning: New Essays (Bloomsbury, 2016). Important articles include: Michael Levine, “What Does Death Have to Do with the Meaning of Life?” Religious Studies 23 (1987), pp. 457-465. Phillip Quinn, “How Christianity Secures Life’s Meanings,” in J. Runzo & N. Martin (eds.), The Meaning of Life in the World Religions (Oxford, 2000), pp. 53-68. Jacob Affolter, “Human Nature as God’s purpose,” Religious Studies 43 (2007), pp. 443–455.
  • The Naturalness of Belief in God. Mark Talbot, “Is it Natural to Believe in God?” Faith and Philosophy 6/2 (1989), pp. 155-171. Justin Barrett, Why Would Anyone Believe in God? (AltaMira Press, 2004).  Justin Barrett, Born Believers: The Science of Children’s Religious Belief (Free Press, 2012). Justin Barrett and Ian M. Church, “Should CSR Give Atheists Epistemic Assurance?” The Monist 96/3 (2013), pp. 311-324. Actually, the whole issue of The Monist 96/3 (2013) is devoted to this topic.
  • The Nature and Possibility of Miracles. Richard Swinburne, The Concept of Miracle (Macmillan, 1971). George Schlesinger, “Miracles,” in Quinn and Taliaferro (eds.), A Companion to Philosophy of Religion (Blackwell, 1999), pp. 360-66. George Mavrodes, “Miracles,” in Wainwright (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion (Oxford, 2005), pp. 304-22. An excellent survey of the literature here is Timothy McGrew “Miracles,” in Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  • Rationality of Belief in Miracles.
  • Confirmation of Miracles. John Earman, Hume’s Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles (Oxford, 2000). John DePoe, “Vindicating a Bayesian Approach to Miracles,” Philosophia Christi 10/1 (2008), pp. 229-38.
  • The Virgin Birth. J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ (James Clarke, 1930. rep. 1958). Raymond Brown, The Virginal Conception & Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (Paulist Press, 1973); Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (Doubleday, ed. 1993). C.E.B. Cranfield, “Some Reflections on the Subject of the Virgin Birth,” Scottish Journal of Theology 41 (1988), pp.177–189.
  • The Resurrection. More robust treatments are: Gary Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus: An Apologetic (Baker, 1980). William Lane Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus (The Edwin Mellon Press, ed. 2002). A condensed and popular treatment this study is his The Son Rises (Wipf & Stock, 2000). An excellent scholarly and up-to-date treatment is “The Resurrection of Jesus” ch 8 in Reasonable Faith (Crossway, 3rd ed.), pp. 133-407. Stephen T. Davis, Risen Indeed: Making Sense of the Resurrection (Eerdmans, 1993). Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins (eds.), The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus (Oxford, 1997). N. T. Wright’s magnius opumThe Resurrection of the Son of God (Fortress Press, 2003). Richard Swinburne, The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford, 2003). Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (IVP, 2010). One of the more philosophically sophisticated and thorough treatments is Timothy and Lydia McGrew, “The Argument from Miracles: A Cumulative Case for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth” in Craig and Moreland (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), pp. 593-662. Smaller treatments: William Lane Craig, “Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” Truth 1 (1985), pp. 89-95. Habermas, “The Case for Christ’s Resurrection” in Beckwith, Craig, and Moreland (eds.), To Everyone an Answer (IVP, 2004), pp. 180-198. An excellent survey paper is Gary Habermas, “Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present – What are Critical Scholars Saying?Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3/2 (2006), pp. 135-153.
  • Contemporary Miracles. One attempt to carefully document contemporary miracles claims is James Rutz, Megashift (Empowerment Press, 2005). Even better is Craig Keener, Miracles (Baker, 2011), Vols. 1 & 2.
  • Prophecy. See relevant sections of Blaise Pascal’s Penses, Xff. and John Locke’s, The Reasonableness of Christianity in The Works of John Locke in Nine Volumes (London: Rivington, 1824 12th ed.), Vol. 6. Brownlow Maitland, The Argument from Prophecy (1923; rep. BiblioBazaar, 2008). J. Barton Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy: The Complete Guide to Scriptural Predictions and their Fulfillment (Harper & Row, 1973). Robert Newman, “Fulfilled Prophecy as Miracle,” in Geivett and Habermas (eds.), In Defense of Miracles (IVP, 1997), pp. 214-225. Peter Stoner and Robert Newman, Science Speaks: Scientific Proof of the Accuracy of Prophecy and the Bible (Moody Press, Online Ed., rev. Nov. 2005). Robert Newman, John Bloom, and Hugh Gaugh, “Public Theology and Prophecy Data: Factual Evidence that Counts for the Biblical World View,” JETS 46/1 (2004), pp. 79-110. Lydia McGrew, “Probabilistic Issues Concerning Jesus of Nazareth and messianic Death Prophecies,” Philosophia Christi 15/2, pp. 311-328. Hugh Gaugh, “Best Practices for Prophecy Arguments,” Philosophia Christi 16/2 (2014), pp. 255-282.
  • The Argument from Language. The best work on this is Jeffery Johnson & Joyclynn Potter, “The Argument from Language and the Existence of God,” Journal of Religion 85/1 (2005), pp. 83-93. Also John Oller Jr. & John Omdahl, “Origin of the Human Language Capacity: In Whose Image?” in J. P. Moreland (ed.), The Creation Hypothesis (IVP, 1994), pp. 235-269. Significantly less rigorous–but can be mentioned for reference’s sake–are: Brad Harrub, Dave Miller, & Bert Thompson, “The Origin of Language and Communication,” Reason & Revelation 22/8 (2002), pp. 57-63 and James Bohn, “Beyond the Fire of Prometheus: The Capacity for Human Speech – Empirical Evidence of the Image of God,” Quodlibet Journal 4/2-3 (2002).
  • The Argument from Beauty and Aesthetics. Good but brief treatments are J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City (Baker, 2004), pp. 48-49. Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God (Oxford, 2nd ed., 2004), pp. 190-191. More extensive philosophical treatments appear in Donald Wayne Viney, “The Aesthetic Argument,” ch. 9 of Charles Hartshorne and the Existence of God (SUNY, 1985), pp. 119-128. Mark Wynn, “Providence and Beauty,” ch. 1 in God and Goodness: A Natural Theological Perspective (Routelegde, 1999), pp. 11-36. Many hark back to F. R. Tennant, Philosophical Theology Vol. 2. (Cambridge, 1930). Excellent, though not especially technical are: Thomas Dubay, The Evidential Power of Beauty: Science and Theology Meet (Ignatius, 1999). Benjamin Wiker & Jonathan Witt, A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature (IVP, 2006). For beauty as a theodicy, see Richard Swinburne, Providence and the Problem of Evil (Oxford ), pp. 49-53. Other treatments: Russell Howell, “Does Mathematical Beauty Pose Problem for Naturalism?Christian Scholar’s Review (2007).Alexander Pruss, “The Cosmos as a Work of Art,” (2004). One of the finest treatments is Peter Williams, “Aesthetic Arguments for the Existence of God,” Quodlibet Journal 3/3 (2001). Even better is the review and presentation in Peter Williams, A Faithful Guide to Philosophy (Paternoster, 2013), chs. 14-15. Eleonore Stump, “Beauty as a Road to God,” Sacred Music 134/4 (2007), 11-24.A common premise in the argument from beauty asserts the existence of objective beauty, a book-length defense of which is Eddy M. Zemach’s Real Beauty (Penn State , 1997). Though unpublished, Jim Speigel has some good thoughts on the argument from beauty in a series of posts entitled, “An Anti-Naturalist Argument from Beauty” and “Why Beauty is an Objective Quality in the World.” Michael Rota, Taking Pascal’s Wager (IVP Academic, 2016), ch. 9.
  • The Argument from Desire. C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, (ed. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2001), pp. 136-137; The Pilgrim’s Regress, (Eerdmans, 1992), pp. 204-205; The Weight of Glory (Harper Collins, 1949; rev. ed. 1980), p. 32. Robert Holyer, “The Argument from Desire,” Faith and Philosophy 5/1 (1988), pp. 61-71. Peter Kreeft, “C. S. Lewis’s Argument from Desire,” in Macdonald and Tade (eds.), G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis: The Riddle of Joy (Eerdmans, 1989). Short version: “The Argument from Desire.” Other internet sources: Alexander Pruss, “The Ontological Argument from Desire.” Peter Williams and Carl Stecher, “The God Question 5: Desire and Religious Experience.” Christopher Smith, “God’s Existence and the Argument form Desire.” William A. Lauinger, Well-Being and Theism: Linking Ethics to God (Continuum, 2012). Trent Dougherty, “A Bayesian Argument from Desire,” in Joshua Seachris and Stewart Goetz (eds.), God and Meaning: New Essays (Bloomsbury, 2016).
  • the Anthropologial Argument. See Douglas Groothuis’s two articles, “Disposed Royalty: Pascal’s Anthropological Argument,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41/2 (1998); “A Royal Ruin: Pascal’s Argument from Humanity to Christianity.” See also Robert Verlarde, “Greatness and Wretchedness: The Usefulness of Pascal’s Anthropological Argument in Apologetics,” Christian Research Journal 27/2 (2004). William A. Lauinger, Well-Being and Theism: Linking Ethics to God (Continuum, 2012).
  • The Ontomystical Argument. Alexander Pruss, “Samkara’s Principle and Two Ontomystical Arguments,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 49 (2001), pp. 111–120. T. Ryan Byerly, “The Ontomystical Argument Revisited,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 67 (2010), pp. 95-105.
  • Arguments from Teleology and Free Will. Jan Cover and John O’Leary-Hawthorne, “Free Agency and Materialism,” in Jeff Jordan & Daniel Howard-Snyder (eds.), Faith, Freedom and Rationality (Rowman & Littlefield, 1996), pp. 47-71. J. P. Moreland, “Naturalism and Libertarian Agency” Philosophy and Theology 10/2 (1997), pp. 353-383; “The Explanatory Relevance of Libertarian Agency as a Model of Theistic Design,” in William Dembski (ed.), Mere Creation (IVP, 1998), pp. 265-288. Stewart Goetz, “Naturalism and Libertarian Agency,” in Craig & Moreland (eds.), Naturalism: A Critical Analysis (Routledge, 2000), pp. 156-186. Stuart Goetz & Charles Taliaferro, “An Argument from Consciousness and Free Will,” in Paul Draper (ed.) God or Blind Nature? Philosophers Debate the Evidence (Online book, 2007-2008).
  • The Argument truth Anti-Realism. See Alvin Plantinga, “How to be an Anti-Realist,” APA Proceedings and Addresses 56/1 (1982), pp. 47-70. Michael Rea, “Theism and Epistemic Truth-Equivalences,” Noûs 34/2 (2000), pp. 291–301. W. J. Mander, “On Arguing for the Existence of God as a Synthesis between Realism and Anti-Realism,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 74/1 (2013), pp. 99-115.
  • The Omnificence Argument. A much neglected but ingenious argument, John Bigelow, “Omnificence,” Analysis 65/3 (2005), pp. 187-196.
  • The Argument from Temporal Duration of Composite Objects. David Braine, The Reality of Time and the Existence of God (Oxford, 1988).
  • The Consensus Gentium Argument. Loren Meierding, “The Consensus Gentium Argument,” Faith and Philosophy 15/3 (1998), pp. 271-297. Linda Zagzebski, “Epistemic Self-Trust and the Consensus Gentium Argument,” and Thomas Kelly, “Consensus Gentium: Reflections on the ‘Common Consent’ Argument for the Existence of God” in Clark and VanArragon (eds.), Evidence and Religious Belief (Oxford, 2011), chs. 2, 8. Sébastien Réhault, “Can Atheism Be Epistemically Responsible When So Many People Believe in God?” European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 7/1 (2015), pp. #-#.
  • The Deontic Argument. Carl Kordig, “A Deontic Argument for God’s Existence,” Nous 15/2 (1981), pp. 207-208.
  • The Argument from So Many Arguments. Ted Poston, “The Argument from So Many Arguments” forthcoming.

Blog at WordPress.com.