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.