I love this article. It articulates well what I have been attempting to say for sometime. The strongest arguments for the existence of God are independent of scientific premises. We don’t need modern scientific evidence to make the case that God exists. While I believe arguments for the existence of God using scientific premises are strong, the philosophical arguments for God’s existence are founded on even sturdier ground.
Take the Kalam Cosmological argument as an example. If scientists discover that the universe is past-eternal somehow, the argument falls apart. The argument is “weaker” than a philosophical argument because it is dependent on a premise that we can’t know with certainty – the universe began to exist. At best its conclusion is that God probably exists.
Why Philosophical Proofs for God Are Better Than “Scientific” Proofs | Brian Huffling
Haden Clark 
Hello, thanks for introducing me to the Kalam Cosmological argument. 🙂
LikeLike
Really? Name a single argument/piece of evidence that demonstrates the veracity of the claim that the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth,is the creator-god of the universe.
LikeLike