According to the most recent data published by Pew Research Center, 90% of Americans believe in a higher power.1 Although many other people in the UK and US no longer believe in a particular religion, only 5% are strident atheists in a manner which indicates acceptance of the arguments of the New Atheists.2 Percentage-wise, this may not seem like much, but 5% is a significant proportion of the overall population. The fact that some people are rejecting faith in God would suggest that either they are unconvinced with the evidence for God’s existence, or that arguments for God’s existence have been demolished. Considering this, it may come as a surprise that Richard Dawkins – probably the West’s most popular academic atheist – dedicates only two pages to refuting the design argument for God’s existence and five to Aquinas’s cosmological argument in the God Delusion. The fact that New Atheists seem to have not engaged with the analytic evidence of theists, combined with the fact that analytic philosophy dominates most western university settings,3

gives theists a wide theoretical opening. They can reintroduce some of the most enduring natural theological arguments posited throughout history. Many of the arguments I will present in this book, I have used in applied settings for over a decade. In this time, I have had deep and meaningful conversations with hundreds of atheists and agnostics particularly in the UK. I aim to give the reader a flavour of the type of interactions I have had with people from different cross-sections of society. I will reference my experience with two characters who I will make reference to throughout this book. These two characters are not actual subjects but are hypothetical people or fictitious amalgams of people I have met. Subject A, who I shall call Richard, is the ultra-sceptic friend. He is 21 years of age and an ex-Christian. He entered university to study physics and philosophy. After taking a course on ‘theories of the self’, Richard had an existential crisis and became an atheist. Richard is 1 Pew Forum (2019). In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at a Rapid Pace [online] Pew Research Centre Available at: https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of Christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/. disagreeable, extraverted, and non-caring. Subject B, who I shall call Betty, is a quiet person. Unlike Richard, Betty is an introvert. Betty is agnostic. Spends most of her time by herself either in her room or in the library. When I speak to Betty, Betty takes time to listen to what I say before replying to me. Unlike Richard, Betty is less interested in provoking a reaction from people but more in sharing ideas. Betty comes across as highly docile and placid especially in public settings in which she has much social anxiety. Betty has had a troubled upbringing with sexual and physical abuse in her formative years. Throughout this book where relevant, I will use my experiences with Betty and Richard as case study examples to outline some of the real-life complexities one may face in apologetic interactions.

Much is at stake in the presentation of these arguments for God’s existence. For many, the intellectual validity of theism is predicated on the soundness of these arguments, and the degree to which they can be clearly articulated. For theists to be truly effective they must be able to justify their beliefs from first principles. Since ancient times, rational arguments have been posited for God’s existence. For instance, Aristotle employs proof for an unmoved mover in a way which is analogous to arguments for God’s existence. In the Christian tradition, Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas formulated serious and rational arguments for God’s existence. Maimonides – perhaps the most celebrated scholar in Jewish history – wrote the Guide for the Perplexed, in which he made a systematic case for God’s existence using discursive reasoning. In the Islamic world, Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna), al-Ghazālī (Algazel), Ibn Rushd (Averroes), and many others contributed to this discourse by offering their own sets of proofs for God’s existence. In a similar fashion, enlightenment and post enlightenment philosophers including polymaths such as Gottfried Leibniz and Kurt Gödel presented new arguments as well. These and similar arguments have entered the academic debates that concern a sub-branch of philosophy known as ‘Philosophy of Religion’. In this field, particular focus has been placed on both ontological arguments and cosmological arguments for God’s existence. To be clear, when referring to ontologicalarguments I mean “a proof which argues for the existence of God entirely from a priori premises and makes no use of any premises that derive from our observation of the world”.4 On the other hand cosmological arguments are those which make direct reference to the cosmos in the premises.

In this book, I aim to specifically analyse Ibn Sīnā’s Burhān argument for the existence of God, as I regard it as being most invulnerable to any type of counterattack. The Burhān argument postulates that a world with only contingent existences is inconceivable, as a contingent existence cannot cause itself. A set of an infinite number of contingent existences cannot explain the existence of all contingent existences, or else it would belong in another set, namely the set of necessary existence(s). As a necessary existence it would be an uncaused cause, and it could not be any other way. In short, Ibn Sīnā argues that the only way to explain the existence of anything is to postulate the existence of an uncaused cause, or a wājib al-wujūd (‘necessary existence’). However, despite its impact, the Burhān has not been packaged for apologetic use for a modern audience. Accordingly, my novel contribution to the discourse surrounding God’s existence is found in the intention of re-articulating this argument for theists attempting to make the case for religion to atheist audiences. To this end, I will start this book with some translations of analytically important extracts from the work of Ibn Sīnā (some of which have hitherto not been translated from Arabic to English). I will then assess the reception of Ibn Sīnā’s Burhān argument in the medieval world of both Christians and Muslims. Thereafter, I will present some modern usages of the cosmological and ontological arguments, while comparing them with the Burhān. I will then articulate my own proofs for the necessary existence of God, using the Burhān as my guide. In this, I will compose arguments informed by non-causal contingency and dependency which aim to circumnavigate some of the stock objections on causation and composition. In addition, I will answer some of the most prominent objections towards this argument, with the goal being to demonstrate how useful the Burhān argument can be in discussions between theists and atheists. To achieve this goal, I will bring in conversations with Richard and Betty, wherever possible.