I recently received a question about Dr. William Lane Craig’s arguments regarding meaning, value, and purpose. The respondent claimed that such an argument was just a subjective argument and thus was not a good argument for God’s existence.
My response is below:
Dr. Craig typically refers to meaning, value, and purpose in order to highlight the importance of the issue in question. I’ve not heard him actually construct an argument from those things to God’s existence.
That being said, if you do think that life has meaning, value, and purpose then I could see you constructing an argument for God’s existence.
I’m not sure about your use of the term “subjective”. If something has “subjective” value then it has value to some, but not to others. There isn’t any objective value to it. Dr. Craig’s point is that life can have no objective value if God does not exist, and it would thus not be an argument from subjective claims.
You made mention of being “derived subjectively.” Do you mean that we apprehend those things from our own subjective perspective? I don’t see how it would follow that the meaning so perceived is not objectively real. For example, I observe the moon using my own subjective perceptions. After all, I’m not using your eyesight when I look at it! Nonetheless, I hold that I am observing something that objectively exists even if I come to that belief through my own personal subjective perception.
Do you have a question?
Ask your questions about apologetics, evangelism, or the Christian worldview HERE
Be sure to subscribe to receive new Q&A as it comes out!