Larry Moran has issued the following challenge:
This brings me to my challenge. I challenge all theists and all their accommodationist friends to post their very best 21st century, sophisticated (or not), arguments for the existence of God.Let me first begin by expanding the disclaimer...
I don't think any theistic argument succeeds rigorous or sceptical scrutiny however to deny that new argument exist seems to me to be ignorant. Some atheists seem to be of the opinion that the failure of these arguments and their non-existance are somehow equivalent. Nevertheless I will list some "sophisticated" arguments for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity from modern proponents.
Evidentialists maintain that there exists positive evidence for not only the existence of God but also for the truth of Christianity. (Hereby known as G/C or God/Christianity)
Many modern "sophisticated" arguments take a Bayesian probabilistic approach by trying to quantify what many have called "converging lines of evidence". In plain speak this means that there exists many small pieces to the puzzle which, if taken in isolation mean very little however when taken together provide positive evidence for the truth of G/C, in a similar way as to how a detective might go about collecting evidence to build a case.
The most prominent defender of this view is Richard Swinburne.
The same technique can be used to justify the belief in the resurrection of Jesus. For example, in a debate between Craig and Ehrman, Craig uses Bayesian probability to prove the resurrection is historical.
Tangentially related to the evidentialists are those who believe certain facts of nature/modern science are more probable under theism than atheism.
- the insufficiency of evolution to explain some feature such as information/irreducible complexity, etc.
- the inability to provide positive proof of abiogenesis. (Problems of chirality, etc)
- the fine tuning of the constants of nature (using modern cosmology, hence this is a new argument).
- the existence of the universality of belief in the supernatural.
Many evidentialists are skeptical and critical of their non-evidentialist brethren.
Non-evidentialists don't believe any evidentialist claims succeed and so they resort to different tactics to prove the existence of G/C or to maintain that their beliefs are justified. Some may even claim that proving the truth of G/C is irrelevant.
The most popular proponent of a non-evidentialist epistemology is Alvin Plantinga who maintains that belief in God is properly basic (that is to say it doesn't depend on any other belief).
What is a properly basic belief in reformed epistemology? Well let's say I have a black can in front of me (which I do) then the belief of the colour of this can is a properly basic belief because it relies on accurate sense data (i.e. my eyes). Plantinga says that when he reads the bible he senses the holy spirit, and given that he believes this is accurate sense data, he can be confident that his belief in the holy spirit is properly basic. (This is a thumbnail sketch of a very complicated set of propositions, so don't critique Plantinga on my butchering!)
Plantinga is also famous for his warranted Christian belief which is the proposition that if Christianity is true than one is justified in believing Christianity. This may seem trivial but there were sceptical attacks which concluded that even if Christianity was true, one would not be justified in believing it.
Of less interest seem to be the presuppositionists who believe only Christian Theism provides a coherent world-view. I wouldn't call this sophisticated, but it seems to be modern.
So there we have it. Modern sophisticated justifications and arguments for the truth of G/C. If you want an atheists view on modern philosophy of religion, try someone respected like Graham Oppy (he's Aussie, he's awesome!) over say Richard Dawkins.
Meta Comment: I'm not surprised atheists usually get creamed in debates with professional Christian debaters. When the view is that there exists no new arguments in the last 200 years for G/C then it isn't surprising when they get shown up in a live debate and then are unable to even comprehend what the Christian is saying. This ignorance also flows through to the audience (both sides) who are far less educated in these things.