Theism and the Model of Successful Argument

This paper investigates the question, "What is the model of a successful argument in natural theology?" The three criteria of persuasion, acceptance of premises, and cumulative case, which have been proposed to justify or reject theism, are analyzed using an analytical-critical method. The result shows that none of these criteria, due to their limitations, are individually adequate for a successful argument. The main idea of the paper is to view religious beliefs as the result of a logical-epistemological process and to consider various factors for the success of religious arguments. Therefore, instead of adhering to a specific criterion, one should regard the criterion as a "process." This concept brings our attention to several important points: Firstly, choosing a single criterion for all arguments or measuring and classifying different arguments based on a common criterion is difficult and challenging because there is no consensus on the goal, method, sources, and scope of natural theology. Secondly, it is better to focus on the overall advantages and strengths of the criteria as a whole. Thirdly, one should not perceive the criterion of a successful argument as one-dimensional. Rather, view the criterion as a "process" that allows each criterion to consider the merits of other criteria despite its own strengths. Fourthly, by considering the criterion as a process, the relationship and interaction of these three criteria become possible according to the type, stage, and context of the argument. Consequently, in natural theology, we can benefit from all three criteria together and not separately