Throughout human history, imbedded in every culture, seems to exist an inclination to believe in some higher power. This power is characterized as some invisible god or gods who work behind the scenes and influence the course of history. Whether there is an objective basis to this pervasive belief in God or whether the belief is completely the result of wishful thinking and a fear of the unknown is a question philosophers have pondered from the beginning of recorded history. In modern times, the results of science has revised this question concerning the existence of God by eliminating the possibility of the weak and fickle gods of Ancient Greece and has made the traditional theistic God (i.e. the omniscient, omnipotent, and compassionate Creator) the God of inquiry. The explosion of various scientific advances has revealed a far more precise description of the universe, and as a result, some anticipate a decisive answer to this age-old question, "does God exist?" In very recent years especially, though the debate rages with increasing fervor as the information being discovered is providing the proponents of both sides with bigger weapons, many theistic philosophers see the evidence as forcefully revealing the existence of God as an objective reality.

Theistic philosopher, William Lane Craig, is one of the many intellectuals who see science as providing a decisive answer to the existence of God. Appropriately, Craig’s article, "God and the Initial Cosmological Singularity: A Reply to Quentin Smith" from Faith and Philosophy 9 (1992): 237-247, is a noble attempt to refute an atheistic interpretation of the Big Bang cosmology (science dealing with the beginning of the universe) and demonstrate that only a theistic interpretation is plausible. Initially, Craig summarizes Smith’s argument, which he endeavors to rebut. According to Craig, Smith argues that theism can’t explain the beginning of the universe, while atheism is the best explanation for the beginning of the universe. Smith’s reasoning for the first statement is that if the omnipotent God decided to create the universe, then the universe would result necessarily. But the first state of the universe was inanimate, meaning that the rest of the universe only had a probable chance of resulting. This argument Craig finds extremely weak, and Craig suggests that even if the initial state of the universe was inanimate, while the proceeding state was animated by the preceding inanimate state, this really is not inconsistent with theism as Smith thinks. For God could have created the inanimate state, knowing ahead that it would result in the desired animated universe. Or God could have created the inanimate state, and then intervened to animate the universe. Thus, Craig feels Smith’s first argument is invalid.

Craig similarly feels Smith’s second argument, which claims that atheism is the best explanation for the beginning of the universe is invalid. According to Craig, Smith argues that atheism is a simpler solution than theism. Craig summarizes Smith’s reasoning for this position by quoting from Smith’s article: "it is simpler to suppose that the 4D physical universe began from the simplest instance of the same basic kind as itself, viz., something physical, than it is to suppose that this universe began from the simplest instance of a different kind, viz., something nonphysical and personal." (245). Craig replies by revealing that Smith’s parallel between God and the inanimate state is exaggerated. For the inanimate state is not eternal as God is. Instead, it began to exist, and Craig considers it impossible that a thing begin to exist out of absolutely nothing without a cause. Therefore, Craig concludes that theism remains the best explanation for the beginning of the universe.

 This conclusion should draw our attention since it claims to answer the ancient and universal question, "is God real?" Is Craig’s profound claim really believable, or should we regard his article as an overzealous attempt to manipulate science into a basis for faith. Although current science might not reveal God’s existence as decisively as Craig indicates, Craig’s skilled use of logic, his appeal to verifiable, scientific evidence, and his even-handed style of argumentation makes Craig’s article quite believable.

 The logical reasoning employed by Craig makes his article a very believable source of information. Initially, Craig outlines Smith’s argument and critiques it for logical fallacies. For example, Craig recognizes that Smith’s conclusion that "God did not create the Big Bang singularity" can equivocate to either mean that "the Big Bang singularity was an actual state uncreated by God" or merely that "God refrained from creating the Big Bang singularity" (239). Craig is then careful to evaluate both logical possibilities from Smith’s original statement. Throughout the article, Craig proceeds in a very structured format by evaluating each of Smith’s points, scrutinizing them for their meaning, and then systematically rebutting them. For example, after outlining Smith’s argument, Craig points out that "premises (2) and (5) are problematic," and Craig then proceeds to give his reasons (238). Craig’s use of Latin phrases to exemplify various rules of logic also reveals his skill at logical reasoning. This is seen when Craig says, "Smith attempts a reductio of my argument..." (238). In this manner, Craig is careful to point out logical fallacies. For example, Craig recognizes that Smith’s attempt to logically connect "conceivability" with "imaginability" is invalid (245). Craig also recognizes the logical burden of proof when he claims "it is not necessary to supply a rebutting defeater-defeater, an undercutting defeater-defeater may do" (239). Thus, Craig’s use of logical reasoning increases the believability of his article.

Craig’s logic is not merely an abstract construction but is supported by verifiable evidence, which also increases the believability of his article. For example, Craig supports his theistic claim by referring to the scientific discovery that the universe began to exist about 17 billion years ago and combining this fact with the intuitive understanding that whatever begins to exist requires a cause for its existence. Also, Craig refers to a recent scientific discovery known as the Athropic principle, which indicates that the universe is constructed within the extremely narrow parameters necessary for intelligent life to exist. This principle, Craig uses to support his claim that God may have purposely evolved the universe so that scientists could see the "general revelation of Himself in nature" (340). Craig further supports his interpretation of the Athropic principle by referring to P. C. W. Davies, who, according to Craig, "is a good example of a physicist who does admit that the Athropic coincidences persuade him of God's existence" (230). Although Craig may give philosopher Thomas Aquinas too much credibility when he uses Aquinas’ theory to support a point about God’s ability to perform miracles, Craig still reveals a versatile knowledge of science and philosophy, which enhances the believability of Craig’s article.

 Finally, the even-handed style of Craig’s article reflects intellectual humility, making his article more credible. Although Craig seems to belittle the very proposition of an atheistic interpretation of the Big Bang by referring to such an interpretation as "remarkable" in contrast to Craig’s view that the Big Bang "makes God’s existence practically undeniable," Craig is consistently careful to give Smith the benefit of the doubt in his refutation of Smith’s points (237). For example, initially, Craig concedes that the universe may have had an inanimate state, though the scientific evidence for such a state is far from conclusive. Later, Craig allows Smith the possibility that God is restricted to creating animated universes even though Craig finds this possibility to be problematic. Craig’s even-handed approach is also exemplified when he gives Smith credit where it is due. For example, Craig states that "Smith correctly follows the classical theologians in distinguishing originating creation from continuous creation" (241). This humble approach to critiquing Smith’s article greatly substantiates Craig’s authenticity, thus making his article highly believable.

 This believability should increase the influence the article has on its readers. An article that is not believable has little power to impact its readers, while Craig’s article engages its readers with skilled logic and plausible evidence, thus leaving his readers with a fresh appreciation for Craig’s conclusion. This appreciation gives the article greater relevance to students by providing plausible information, which students can integrated into their field of interest. As a result, the believability of Craig’s article makes the article more accessible to inquiring students by enhancing its relevance to the students’ interests.