¹ Craig, William, L. and Smith, Quentin. Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology (Oxford University Press), 1993 Google Scholar

² Ibid., 195.

³ A small, somewhat confusing point needs to be clarified here. Although Smith writes in Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology that ‘… my argument is simply that the existence of God is inconsistent with the classical Big Bang theory. I aim to produce a valid argument for God's non-existence, not a sound one.’ (Ibid. 196). In the context where this quote was taken, what Smith most probably meant to say is that his Atheistic argument is only valid because we do not know if Big Bang Cosmology is true. But if we grant that Big Bang Cosmology is true, within that context Smith intends to give a sound argument. Similarly, I will attempt to offer a Theistic version of his argument that is only sound within the context of Big Bang Cosmology.

⁴ Ibid., 196.

⁵ Ibid., 197.

⁶ Ibid., 199.

⁷ Ibid., 199.

⁸ Ibid., 200.

⁹ Ibid., 201.

¹⁰ Ibid., 202.

¹¹ Ibid., 203.

¹² Ibid., 204.

¹³ Ibid., 204–205.

¹⁴ Ibid., 202–205.

¹⁵ Ibid., 228–230.

¹⁶ Ibid., 243.

¹⁷ Ibid., 242.

¹⁸ Ibid., 266–267.

¹⁹ Ibid., 269.

²⁰ Notice, however, that I do not use this kind of reasoning in my argument. In my argument, I deduce the fact that given the definition of God, the evidence must be part of God's plan, while in this other kind of reasoning we go the other way around. We use inductive logic to conclude that given the evidence, it only seems probable to us that God could have had a plan.

²¹ Ibid., 198.