This debate revolves around the question of whether God exists or not. William Craig supports the idea that there is some higher power governing the lives of all living beings, whereas Austin Dacey rejects this hypothesis. In this paper, we need to assess the quality of the arguments, which these philosophers advance. In order to do it, it is necessary to set aside personal prejudices because otherwise, we would overlook the logic and structure of this discussion.
Overall, it seems that William Craigs reasoning is more convincing, yet the opinions of his opponent cannot be dismissed. First, his overarching thesis is based on the search for the initial cause. In other words, he concurs with the theories of the Big Bang and evolution, but the scholar emphasizes that they only confirm theism. He believes that only God could provide such a powerful stimulus for these processes. In his opinion, only the existence of higher power can account for the fact that any substance and energy could emerge out of sheer nothing. Similar views have already been expressed by Thomas Aquinas, but they still remain relevant.
In his turn, Austin Dacey argues that there are certain inconsistencies within theism, and they completely violate the ideas of Gods existence. First and foremost, he maintains there is no scientific, logical, or perceptual evidence indicating that there is God. By saying that, he refers to the so-called “hiddenness of God.” The scholar poses the question of why God does not fully reveal himself to humankind, provided that he wants to establish harmonious relationships with us.
Additionally, he says that God would have never brought sufferings into the world if he had been all-loving and omnipotent. Naturally, such a possibility cannot be entirely eliminated. Nonetheless, there is some misconception. Austin Daceys argument stems from the belief that a human being can understand the motives of a higher power. We can draw an analogy; it is very unlikely that a worm is capable of gaining insights into the mind of a Homo sapiens. Therefore, there is very little likelihood that we can know the true objectives of God if he, she, or it exists.
Apart from that, the scholars dispute the human or divine nature of Jesus Christ. In this respect, we should point out this issue goes beyond the scope of logic, and it has to be admitted that Dr. Daceys atheistic standpoint appears to be more persuasive because he clearly proves that there is no historic proof suggesting that such person as Jesus Christ ever was or at least that he could perform those miracles, ascribed to him. As a matter of fact, this is just a matter of faith.
Subsequently, William Craig says that to some extent, God is a perceptual notion, and only faith can make it real, which means that if a person does not believe in something, he will always reject any evidence of its existence.
It is very difficult to tell which of the philosophers has won this debate points made by both of them are reasonable. Yet, in this case, we should give preference to William Craig because he tried to describe God as the power, which caused Big Bang and subsequently evolution.
As for Austin Dacey, we should mention that he stresses the idea that we cannot perceive this high power; moreover, its actions are often incompatible with each other. The thing is that if we cannot see God, it does not mean that he does not exist. Dr. Dacey presents a rationalistic approach to this philosophical question, but rationalism has several considerable flaws. This theory of knowledge dismisses everything that it cannot explain.