在本书中,我们探讨了证明真主存在的一些主要论证,尤其侧重于偶然性论证。我们细致梳理了这些论证的历史,发现历史上最伟大的思想家们在这类推理方法的有效性上达成了惊人的一致。我们特别关注伊本·西纳(Ibn Sīnā)所提出的Burhān论证,该论证构建了在神学与哲学上无懈可击的论据,适用于护教和牧会场合。全书(尤其是第五章)中,我们讨论了针对该论证提出的一些主要反驳,并证明这些反驳几乎都已在该论证的最初提出者那里以某种方式被预见到了。此外,本书还考察了所谓"新无神论者"对这一话语的贡献。研究发现,这些当代人物非但没有提供任何有价值的见解,许多人对这一主题的处理反而显得误导或敷衍。他们在网络上、在其最著名的出版物中,或在其他地方,都未能回应关于Burhān论证或其变体的种种论证,这表明这些人物从未真正面对过来自有神论者的此类质询。随着人口结构的变化与不可知论的兴起,在护教与论辩领域引入这类论证的利害关系已极为重大。考虑到当前的人口趋势,神学作为一门学科本身可能会失去相关性(尤其是在英国),特别是当该学科的首要前提,即真主的存在,无法得到恰当论证的时候。话虽如此,我们在每一章的假设性情境中已经看到,单靠冷静理性的方法本身永远不足以胜任。 对于一位无神论的批评者而言，若要真正安心地接受所提出的论点，他通常还需要对提出这些论点的人感到安心。尽管我个人并不了解有任何形式的心理学研究，在明确界定的参数下对此问题进行过研究，但有时过往的创伤和人际关系上的困难，确实可能是人们神学态度的一个关键指标。具有讽刺意味的是，有时说服他人相信真主的最好方法，恰恰是不去论证真主的存在。有时批评者的论点确实需要加以驳斥，但在另一些情况下，克制不去驳斥需要勇气。从牧养的角度来说，人应当审视当下的心境，并评估可用的选择。情商与社交智慧，有时比拥有人类文明所能提供的最好论据更为珍贵。

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.