The ontological argument for God's existence has been dismissed and reformulated for nine centuries. In its contemporary form, it remains one of the most disputed — and most serious — arguments in philosophy.
The naturalist claims that the human mind is entirely the product of blind evolutionary processes. But if that is true, why should we trust our minds on the questions evolution has no interest in — including the question of whether naturalism is true?
Neuroscience can tell us which brain regions activate during different experiences. It cannot tell us why there is any experience at all. This gap — the Hard Problem of Consciousness — is one of the deepest unsolved problems in all of science.
Most people behave as though moral facts are real — as though torturing children for entertainment is not just something they personally dislike, but something genuinely wrong. Where do those facts come from, and what grounds them?
The secular humanist argues that we need no God to live ethically — that compassion, reason, and human solidarity are sufficient foundations. The argument is partly right. The part where it falls short is the part that matters most.
Moral relativism — the view that there are no universal moral truths, only cultural conventions — sounds tolerant. On examination, it is self-refuting, practically unliveable, and unable to support the very values it is typically invoked to protect.
Whether you are a convinced atheist, an agnostic, a scientist, a sceptic, or someone carrying doubts you have never voiced — this is for you. Every question deserves a serious answer, not a rehearsed one.