In this book we covered some of the main arguments for God’s existence, with a particular focus on contingency arguments. We carefully traced the history of these arguments and found that there is a staggering level of agreement among the greatest minds known to history on the effectiveness of such lines of reasoning. We devoted special attention to the Burhān argument formulated by Ibn Sīnā, which makes theologically and philosophically watertight arguments suitable for use in apologetic and pastoral settings. Throughout the book (and especially in chapter 5), we dealt with some of the main objections presented against the argument. We have demonstrated that virtually all these objections were in some way anticipated by the initial formulators of the argument. In addition, the book considered the so-called ‘New Atheist’ contributions to this discourse. It found that instead of providing any valuable contributions, many of these contemporary figures have only demonstrated misguided or lazy treatments of the subject matter. The failure to uncover what New Atheists say about the Burhān argument or its permutations – on the internet, in their most famous publications, or otherwise – is suggestive of the fact that such figures have never had to deal with this line of interrogation from a theist. With changing demographics and the growth of agnosticism, the stakes are too high to not introduce these types of arguments in the areas of apologetics and polemics. Considering current demographic trends, theology as a discipline itself may lose relevance (in the UK in particular), especially if the first premise of the discipline (namely, the existence of God) cannot be argued for in a proper way. Having said this, we have seen through the hypothetical scenarios in each chapter that a cold and rational approach by itself can never be sufficient. For the atheist detractor to feel truly comfortable with the arguments presented, they will usually need to feel comfortable with the person making these arguments. Despite personally being unaware of any formal psychological studies conducted on this matter with clearly defined parameters, it is perhaps the case that past trauma and relationship difficulties can sometimes be a key indicator to the theological attitudes which people have. Ironically, sometimes the best way to convince someone of God is to refrain from arguing for God’s existence. Sometimes arguments of detractors need to be attacked, but in other cases it takes bravery not to attack. Pastorally, one must read the prevailing mood and assess the available options. Being emotionally and socially intelligent can sometimes be more valuable than having the best arguments civilisation has had to offer.