Week 9: Interlude — The Clues of God

1.Keller describes the Interlude as a transition from "clearing away objections" to "building a positive case." Why might this two-step structure be more persuasive than simply leading with arguments for God's existence? What is he assuming about his reader's state of mind?

2.He introduces several "clues of God" — features of human experience that cry out for explanation: the regularity of nature, the existence of objective moral values, the near-universal human experience of beauty and transcendence. Which of these clues do you find most personally arresting? Which do you find least convincing?

3.Keller borrows from the philosopher Alvin Plantinga the idea that belief in God can be "properly basic" — that it does not need to be proven from more fundamental premises the way we don't need to prove that our senses are reliable. How do you react to that argument? Does it feel like a dodge, or a genuine philosophical point?