Pick the right premises and you can prove anything. All universes are ultimately, if not proximately, random vacuum fluctuations. No information is passed, so they are not "caused". The first premise is therefore false. That said, the book becomes a decent argument against the existence of a single god, but I can do better, faster, without quoting Aquinas or any other philosopher.

The other reviews here are quite comprehensive, so it will be difficult to add something new. However, I will try.

I have seen Craig in debate numerous times, read one of his other books ("Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics) and he is the best intellectually respectable defenders of Christianity alive today. Comparing his debates to this book shows that Craig has a wide range and knows how to argue at a level appropriate to his audience. Craig can talk to the interested public and academic philosophers alike. This book definitely falls into the second category (Craig did his first Ph. D on it) and it is aimed at those who want a comprehensive defense of this one particular argument for God's existence.

The book is divided into two main sections. A historical review of the argument as it was originally presented by various Islamic philosophers about a thousand years ago starts the book. I found most of the arguments here comprehensible because Craig had the foresight to put the arguments into a chart, so that you can visually see the progression of the ideas. For most readers, this material will be completely new. Islamic philosophers are rarely covered in first year university and courses on such topics are few and far between.

The second section is the modern defense of the kalam cosmological argument. Craig arguments are of two types; philosophical (using mathematics as his evidence) and scientific or empirical (using astronomy and physics as his evidence). The mathematics arguments are extremely difficult to follow and I think most readers will only understand parts of it. Some of his observations are as follows; even if an actual infinite exists in mathematics, it is generally thought that mathematical concepts have no concrete existence (this is something of a simplification, but that is unavoidable in the space available), that an infinite cannot be formed by addition and so on. I get the impression that the mathematics Craig uses (primarily set theory) is a simply a modern presentation of the Islamic arguments, which I founder easier to comprehend. The basic conclusion offered is that an actual infinite is mired in contradictions and thus cannot exist.

The second part of his evidence deals with astronomy, the Big Bang, thermodynamics and so on. Craig refutes the non-Big Bang models of the universe. The Big Bang model of the universe asserts that the universe began to exist approximately 15 billion years ago. The steady state model (which asserts that the universe is eternal) was refuted by empirical evidence in the 1960's while the oscillating model is confronted by major physical problems that make it quite implausible. Craig prefaces this section with a comment that some people find abstract philosophical argumentation too difficult and thus prefer the "concrete" sciences. Personally, I think that philosophy is better equipped, as a discipline, to address questions such as: Is the universe eternal? Did the Universe have a cause?

Briefly, near the end of the book, Craig defends what he rightly regards as the causality principle. The principle holds that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Craig presents the arguments of some other philosophers who attempt to show that this principle is self-evident or otherwise inescapable.

This is, without a doubt, the most difficult book I have read this year. Yet, it is quite rewarding. Craig successfully argues against all those who disagree with him and it is challenging to imagine a refutation of his position. If you have taken "Philosophy of religion" courses at the university level, you would definitely appreciate the book although some of the math-based arguments may be difficult to follow. I would only recommend it to people with a broad understanding of philosophy and or apologetics. If you would like an beginner's introduction on how to defend the Christian faith, I recommend, "The Case for Faith," by Lee Strobel (very readable and easy to understand), "Mere Christianity," by C.S. Lewis (a classic defense of Christianity, but it is quite short and not quite as rigorous as I would like). For a more in-depth defense of Christianity that covers both the existence of God, miracles, and Jesus Christ, J.P. Moreland's book, "Scaling the Secular City" (which I have reviewed) is bar none the best. Craig's book, "Reasonable faith," is also fairly good.

P.S. If you intend to offer a substantive critique of the argument, you must undermine the philosophical and scientific arguments for both of them independently establish the beginning of the universe, one of the key elements of the argument. One of the reviewers, George Tucker, "refuted" the argument in less than 100 words without addressing any of Craig's evidence. This is a poor attempt to refute an brilliantly argued book.

You said in your review,"All universes are ultimately, if not proximately, random vacuum fluctuations." Ponder this. In fluctuation vaccuum theory it is admitted that all we can empirically examine or have knowledge of is our universe ONLY! This is what the orginal proponants of the theory stated. That is why they abandoned the theory and no one has been able to support it empirically. How can one propose to ever give evidence for the existence of physical realities that are supposed to be outside of our physical reality. Translation: That is not science. That is someones imagination. True our universe probably does have vaccuum fluctuations but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the universe came from the emergence of the singularity of the Big Bang or abandoned fluctuation theories. Entropy is real and everything, the totality of the universe is at its mercy. The universe is moving toward its total death by loss of usable energy, til it will be at a stand still. That being the case, there is only evidence for the beginning of our universe from the Big Bangs singualarity. If all that there is had been infinite why didn't the universe die trillions of years ago? Was't there enough time? There are only two kinds of causation. An impersonal causation from eternity would have had existing with it an eternal effect, therefore agent causation is true by default. An agent is the only causal condition that can exist prior to what it willfully causes, its effect. Therefore Craig is right. God exist!

This book is one in Zondervan's Counterpoints Series, which presents the view of various (mostly) Evangelical writers on theological subjects. This book is sorely needed because Evangelical apologists have had a history of writing critically and polemically of one another (one thinks of the Clark/Van Til debate), with the result of the layman having a difficult time deciding among the various positions.

The problem with this book is either that the writers are too timid or are more irenic than their label would indicate. There are three authors who present variations on the traditional approach: the classical method (Craig), the evidential method (Habermas), and the cumulative case method (Feinberg). These approaches are quite similar, although some differences do arise. When the reader gets to John Frame's presuppositional method, he expects to get a starkly different approach. After all, Van Til was notorious for attacking "traditional" apologetics as "Roman Catholic" or "Arminian." Well, Frame tells us that he agrees with most of what Craig writes. The final writer, Kelly James Clark (who represents the "Reformed epistemological method"), says the same thing.

Perhaps the editor could have selected a follower of Gordon Clark (a rationalist who denied the proofs of God's existence) or a fideist to present a contrasting apologetic method.

Few books have seriously tackled apologetic method, or how Christianity should be defended rationally. The last book I know of that surveyed options in this regard was Gordon Lewis, "Testing Christianity's Truth Claims" (Moody Press, 1976; republished by University Press of America).

This book presents five different approaches, each represented by one of its exponents: Classical Apologetics (William Lane Craig), Evidentialism (Gary Habermas), Culumulative Case Method (Paul Feinberg), Presuppositionalism (John Frame), and Reformed Epistemology (Kelly James Clark).

Much ground is covered concerning the Bible's approach to apologetics, where apologetic arguments should begin, how certain arguments for Christianity are, and so on. I will simply make a few comments.

The presentations by Craig and Habermas are the most worthwhile because they are the most intellectual rigorous and well-documented. They also tend to agree with each on most things and reinforce each others views. While I tend to favor a cumulative case method (influenced by E.J. Carnell and Francis Schaeffer, but with more appreciation for natural theology), Feinberg's comments are the weakest by far. He never mentions the leading exponent of this view in our generation (Carnell) nor Carnell's apt and well-published student (and my esteemed colleague), Dr. Gordon Lewis. Not one word about either one! His comments are brief, his documentation is thin, and he fails to advance anything very creative or helpful, I'm afraid. A better person should have been chosen, such as Gordon Lewis. Frame gives his "kinder, gentler" version of Cornelius Van Til, which still suffers from the same kinds of problems--most notably the fallacy of begging the question in favor of Christianity. Nevertheless, the notion of a "transcendental argument" for theism is a good one, but it should not carry all the weight of apologetics. Clark's material is philosophically well-informed (one would expect this of a student of Alvin Plantinga!), but apologetically timid. Clark almost sounds like a skeptic at times.

A few bones more bones to pick. The editor refers to Francis Schaeffer as a presuppositionalist. This is false; he was a verificationist with more in common with Carnell than with Van Til. Gordon Lewis's fine essay on Schaeffer's apologetic method in "Reflections on Francis Schaeffer" makes this very clear. None of the writers address the great apologetic resources found in Blaise Pascal. I also found at least two grammatical errors.

Nevertheless, as a professor of philosophy at a theological seminary who teaches apologetics, I found this volume very helpful and useful. But let's not get so involved in methodological concerns that we fail to go out in the world and defend our Christian faith as objectively true, existentially vital, and rationally compelling (Jude 3)!

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Philosophy Denver Seminary

I got my copy from Amazon a few weeks ago and the day I received it I could not put it down. This is a wonderful text. The book covers five various apologetic methods from five well known scholars who promulgate and defend each of their own views. Moreover, once each of these five scholars have written why they use a particular method, the other four have an opportunity to respond. The responses are by far the best part of the book. However, the actual essays that cover the five methods give the reader a better grasp on that particular method. This book is helpful in several ways. First, it provides the reader a fairly exhaustive treatment of each of the various apologetic methods. Second, it allows the reader to actually see what proponents of the each of the various methods are saying about each of the other methods. Third, it includes some of the best, if not the best, scholars in each of the various methodologies covered. The contributors include, William Lane Craig (Classical Method), Gary R. Habermas (Evidential Method), Kelly James Clark (Reformed Epistemological Method), Paul D. Feinberg (Cumulative Method), and John M. Frame (Presuppositional Method). The only downside to the book that I can see is the idea that some may think that their particular method was not accurately covered by the scholar at hand. In other words, the Presuppositionalists may wonder why John Frame was used instead of someone else, etc. However, I believe that each method was given a fair assessment and the initial essays with the responses will make the book a wonderful reference for many years to come.

Here is another text by William Lane Craig that deals with the issues of Divine Foreknowledge, human freedom, and future contingents. This is a very academic text and expects the reader to have a background knowledge in the philosophies at hand. However, it is a good text to read for the issues. Craig covers some of the major philosophers who have tackled the problems of Divine foreknowledge and future contingents. The philosophers covered are, Aristotle, Augustine, Boethius, Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, William Ockham, Luis de Molina, and Francisco Suarez. Craig covers what each philosopher taught, the works which each philosopher wrote regarding the issue at hand, and gives criticisms and agreements regarding each of the views espoused. The bibliography is very thorough containing mainly primary works, but including secondary texts as well. The only downfall in which I was able to detect was Craig's description of some of the things espoused by Aquinas. For instance, Craig declares that, "In De veritate Aquinas explains that what is necessary can be known even when it will happen in the future, as is the case with an astronomer's knowledge of a coming eclipse, but a contingent cannot be known as future because it can be impeded before it is brought into being." (page 101-102) This is simply not true, Aquinas does not espouse such a thing in De Veritate (On Truth) nor any of his other works for that matter. While I am not an expert on Aquinas in this area, I have done enough research to know that Aquinas would not suggest such a thing. Nonetheless, overall Craig gives a somewhat fair assessment of Aquinas, but there are a few things on which he just seems to miss the boat. However, all the chapters are very informative and helpful with excellent references to help the reader move into further study and research.

"the prophet who prophesies will be recognized as one truly sent by the Lord ONLY IF HIS PREDICTION COMES TRUE."(Jer.28:9)

This is the inerrant litmus test of Bible prophecy: 100% Definitive Factuality in ADVANCE of freely chosen agent decisions, 0% error rate. Openism is DOA,AWOL,Mene-Mene-Tekel-Uparsin at this point! The handwriting is on the wall!

"Hear the Word of the Lord all you exiles in Babylon. This is what the Lord Almighty says about Ahab and Zedekiah who are prophesying lies to you in My Name. 'I will hand them over to King Neb. and he will put them to death before your very eyes. Because of them, all the exiles from Judah in Babylon will use this curse: The Lord treat you like Zedekiah and Ahab, whom the king of Babylon burned in the fire.'"

An irrefutable case of EXHAUSTIVE DEFINITIVE DIVINE FOREKNOWN FACTUALITY about the future free decisions of Ahab; Zedekiah; King of Babylon specifically using fire for execution; and all exiles using the exact, precisely predicted curse based on the free decisions of Ahab, Zedekiah, King (all inextricably interlinked) in the OMNI-Mind of God, freely played out in time

Openism's 'extensive indefinite forecasting' cannot account for such prophecies. (Too many to list here - see separate reviews for 'Beyond the Bounds'; 'God Under Fire'; 'Bound Only Once'.)

Why must Gregory Boyd set up a hyper-Calvinist view as straw antagonist, then make his 'case' for why his Open Theory is the 'most Biblical' (compared to what??)? Ajarism (Free Futures are seen by God as through an ajar door darkly) can't help but seem more palatable by comparison with the ultra-Calvinist
'Closed door known but to God' or Liberal Process 'Wide-Open door unknown to God'.

The nebulous argument for 'Infinite Intelligence' to compensate for 'Non-infinite knowledge of free futures' (known as Divine Nescience,i.e Ignorance) is verbal legerdemain for denial of genuine, meaningful OMNI-science as the Bible teaches.

God is, according to Boydian theory, MULTI-scient or MAXIMI-scient (God knows a lot, more than anyone, the maximum logically knowable, but not quite EVERYTHING as the Bible says).

Instead, Gregory makes God out to be of such great intellect to work around His deemed lack of Infinite Foreknowledge of all future mortal free Shalls and Shall nots, Wills and Will nots. Boyd invents a new sub-Attribute to compensate for eviscerating another Attribute to allow God to come out O.K. in the end.

But it backfires. It only creates a deity in a limited human's intellectual image. In exchange for the Biblical Jesus of Infinite awareness, foresight, prescience and precise knowledge of all Space-Time events/decisions from Eternity Past to Eternity Future and all in between, we are left with a supreme weather forecaster or chess grandmaster. However as we all know, weathermen are often surprised, wrong, erroneous and mistaken. Garry Kasparov and IBM's Deep Blue have both lost against each other. Is this the sort of Jesus that Gregory Boyd sincerely believes in, trying to persuade others to accept,too?

'Infinite Intelligence' is woeful consolation for 'knowing' free agent futures as predominantly possibles, maybes, contingents, risky what-ifs, potentials, probables, likelihoods,
projections, indeterminates, variables, random chance, unpredictabilities, uncertainties that may after all not materialize to divine expectations/forecasts.

It is here that the equally nebulous Boydian concept of 'Theo-Repentism' must be triggered to explain how Jesus handles free futures that don't work out as anticipated. When confronted with new information, or in relating to free decision makers, the Eternal Lord Jesus then changes the divine mind, repents (of wrong-doing, wrong-guessing,wrong-imagining, wrong-thinking,wrong-prognosticating, wrong-speaking,wrong-predicting, wrong-prophesying, etc.) or regrets, rues prior decisions based on incomplete data, wishing they could be do-overs or in need of retraction or repair. Infinite Intelligence kicks in at this stage for 'divine damage control' to salvage a draw and prevent checkmate from all the free-ranging opponents who act/decide contrary to the limits of divine predictability in the chaotic chessgame/meteorology of life.

Sound puzzling? It is. Especially when you read the seminal book by Gregory Boyd that started it all: 'Trinity & Process' (see separate review), based on Hartshorne's 'Omnipotence & Other Theological Mistakes' (see review where you discover that Boyd's Omnipotence is no less limited than his Omniscience).

It seems OMNI (Latin for All) cannot mean OMNI anymore, at least for Open Theorists. What then becomes of OMNI-presence? Infiniteness? Eternality?
Transcendence? OMNI-sapience (ALL-Wise)? What happens to all the Historic-Evangelically understood Trinitarian Attributes? How are they Openistly redefined/updated for modern consumption? Only God knows (or, maybe He doesn't? Stay tuned!)

Most unfortunate that books like this which incorporate non-evangelical 'theology' alongside historic Christianity are distributed for uncritical consumption by a non-discerning readership. Seeking wider respectability, Openism/Ajar Theory merely shows with every published page how far Boyd-Pinnock-Sanders have headed AWAY from the Bible and TOWARD a vivid, free agent imagination a la borrowed elements of Hartshorne's Processistic, non-Scriptural philosophic fabrications.

The LORD said it best in Job 42:7 "I am angry with you..because you have not spoken of Me what is right."

This book rates 3 stars for including 3 Biblical/Evangelical views, but subtract stars for Gregory's use of contemporary philosophic presuppositions applied to selective misinterpreted Bible texts to provide a marginal audience the latest heterodox option to counter the straw antagonist of hyper-Calvinism.

Ultimately can't persuade in any cogent, balanced, unbiased way.

The OMNITrue One Who has Eternal Exhaustively Divine Definitive Foreknown Factuality of ALL Free Futures, Infinitely Uninformable ,Unrepentable,Inerrant, Incorrectible, Infallible, OMNI-Present (Ever-Present I AM in ALL point-moments of space-time: Length-Width-Height-Past-Present-Future), Eternal, Limitlessly Aware,OMNI-Relational,Interactive LORD Jesus said,

"Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God?"

Just one Scripture from Jesus settles the Foreknowledge Issue once for all:

"I AM TELLING YOU NOW BEFORE IT HAPPENS SO THAT WHEN IT DOES HAPPEN YOU WILL BELIEVE THAT I AM HE." (John 13:19)
Not forecasting, possibilizing, but TELLING. Not if, but WHEN.
Not may,might,could,perhaps should, but DOES happen. 0% Uncertain. 100% definite. That's genuine Omniscience. Amen.

Interesting that this book would present as one of the "evangelical" options of what God knows and when He can know it:
the curious notion that God possesses EXTENSIVE INDEFINITE FORECASTING (a la weather prognosticator or chess grandmaster) subject to all the iffiness and unknowable randomness of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Chaos Theory working themselves out in a fallen world unbeknownst in advance to the Creator! Boyd's presupposition is THE FUTURE DOES NOT EXIST YET, EVEN FOR THE OMNISCIENT/ETERNAL CREATOR GOD, except as mere possibilities yet to be freely actualized.
Therefore He is the deity of what is humanly,logically possible.

Boyd's Neo-Processistic philosophical theorizing becomes more incoherent with each book. How can God know how He will definitely act in the future if He doesn't know how sinners and demons will definitely behave? If our decisions don't exist until we freely make them, how can God's decisions exist until He freely makes His in response to ours in response to others in response to the devil's in response to... ad infinitum?? If all God can know are ultimately possibles (not actuals, definites), then ALL He can know about future agency is INDEFINITE (MAYBE). Thus Boyd teaches EXTENSIVE INDEFINITE FORECASTING - which he calls Omniscience! Talk about verbal legerdemain! God can only know what is humanly,finitely knowable

A careful study of the Bible shows rather the truth that there is NO LIMIT to the extent (past,present,future) of God's knowledge. It is ETERNALLY EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DEFINITIVE FOREKNOWN FACTUALITY OF ALL FREE FUTURES-OMNIPRESCIENCE
His understanding is INFINITE. That God definitely knows in advance precisely what sinners and demons WILL/WILL NOT do doesn't mean therefore that they are thus forced to, or thereby lose their agency/moral responsibility. Neither is God to blame for the foreknown exercise of their agency. He retains full final say, ultimate control and awareness as definite in advance of ALL they will choose to do. Because some mortal minds can't reconcile this profundity, Open Theory (Ajarism) is the misbegotten result. With all due respect to sincere but sincerely wrong Gregory Boyd, there is little about Neo-processism or EIF (EXTENSIVE INDEFINITE FORECASTING) that can be understood in any sense as Biblical or Orthodox Truth about God's Attributes such as OMNISCIENCE/OMNIPRESENCE. God is ever PRESENT at every point/moment of space/time, including ALL the FUTURE. The I AM is ALREADY THERE/THEN waiting for us just as He IS with us HERE/NOW.

Otherwise well-written. 1 star for attempting to resurrect the long-discredited 'Nescience' pseudo-theology of the late 19th Century (with some elements of 16th Cent. Socinianism) via a self-refuting misunderstanding of how God interacts with ALL FUTURE MORTAL AGENCY: Comprehensively, and for Open Theorists, Incomprehendible.

Most of the reviews on this page miss the boat entirely. Rather than actually reviewing or recommending DF the reviewers are merely venting their anger because their particular view is challenged.

Pay them no mind. DF is an excellent book. Buy it and read all the views with as much of an open humble mind as you can. It's better than the alternative spoon feeding that is rampant in many circles of Evangelicalism today.

The glossary is a great idea more publishers should follow.

Keep em coming Eddy, Beilby, Gannsle ....etc.