Question A: Examine either (a) the Kalam Cosmological Argument and/or (b) the Anthropic Teleological Argument, as discussed in the text. Is either more plausible than the other? Why or why not?
Question B: What are "properly basic" beliefs? Can a belief in God be one, if the whole notion of a "properly basic" belief is justified?
Question C: Which of the following accounts of God do you find most plausible: (1) God as personal, as understood by traditional Western theism; (2) God as an impersonal force, as understood by Spinoza and Shankara; or (3) God as understood by process theology, as a quasi-personal God but not the creator of the world ex nihilo or "out of nothing"; or (4) none of the above? Why?
Sample Solution