Reddit reviews A Thinker's Guide to the Philosophy of Religion

I work in philosophy but I do not specifically do philosophy of religion. So, for what's worth, I'll give you my evaluation of the present landscape of potential theistic arguments:

1. Total Non-starters Today Design Arguments, Cosmological Arguments, Moral Arguments
   
2. Open Possibilities Today Fine-Tuning Arguments, Modal Ontological Arguments, Pascal's Wager
   
3. Today's Best Possibilities Religious Experience, Reformed Epistemology, Plantinga's Argument Against Naturalism
   
   Below I'll add a comment about each.
   
   But before I comment further on specific arguments, it's worth mentioning that about 70% of contemporary philosophers are atheist and consequently think all of the potential arguments fail. So when I say 'open possibilities' / 'best possibilities' you should keep in mind that the best arguments available for God today are still arguments that most philosophers think fail. Specifically:
   
   > Accept or lean toward: atheism (72.8%)
   
   > Accept or lean toward: theism (14.6%)
   
   > Other (12.6%)
   
   > Source: http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
   
   One more caveat before I begin, while most philosophers are atheist, most philosophers who specifically do philosophy of religion are theist:
   
   > Accept or lean toward: theism (72.3%)
   
   > Accept or lean toward: atheism (19.1%)
   
   > Other (8.5%)
   
   This may mean that philosophers who are experts in these arguments are better able to realize how good they are, or this may mean that philosophers tend not want to specialize in philosophy of religion unless they are already theist or theist leaning/disposed. A few years ago philosophers themselves were trying to figure out what lesson to draw from the split between philosophy generally being very atheistic but philosophy of religion specifically being very theistic.
   
   Lastly, let me plug what I think is a really good intro textbook on philosophy of religion:
   
   > A Thinker's Guide to the Philosophy of Religion Paperback (2006)
   > by Allen Stairs (Author), Christopher Bernard (Author)
   > http://www.amazon.com/A-Thinkers-Guide-Philosophy-Religion/dp/0321243757
   
   The textbook is co-written by one atheist philosopher and one theist philosopher and they try and end every chapter without taking clear sides. That is both good and bad since the textbook fails to differentiate more and less plausible arguments for God. Nevertheless, the textbook is really really good as far as covering the material.
   
   Okay, with all that said...
   
   ____
   
   Design Argument and the Fine-Tuning Argument
   
   The Design Argument and the Fine-Tuning Argument are two similar arguments, but only one seems to still be standing. Both work backwards from seeming design in nature to its source in God. The Design Argument attempts to work back from the seeming design of life on Earth, and the Fine-Tuning Argument works back from the seeming design of the natural laws of the universe (e.g. gravity).
   
   The Design Argument isn't very good post Darwin, as much as the intelligent design movement tries to bring it back. The Fine-Tuning Argument isn't in conflict with Darwin at all. Furthermore, it's an okay line of argument as far as arguments for God go. I think the Design Argument is dead in the water along with Cosmological Arguments (see next), Fine-Tuning Arguments still have some life in them. Nevertheless, there are some better candidates than even the Fine-Tuning Argument.
   
   ----
   Cosmological Arguments
   
   Cosmological Arguments have always seemed absurdly stupid to me. /u/kabrutos admirably lays out a more sophisticated, contemporary version of the Cosmological Argument, but even the one /u/kabrutos lays out strikes me as hopelessly bad. I'd just dismiss Cosmological Arguments as an unsalvageable line of argument for theism.
   
   
   
   Moral Argument
   
   Moral Arguments for Theism (i.e. morality exists, morality needs God, so God exists) has been dead since the Euthyphro dilemma. Total nonstarter in contemporary philosophy.
   
   ----
   
   Arguments from Religious Experience & Reformed Epistemology
   
   I think one of the best places to focus if you are looking for good contemporary arguments for theism are Arguments from Religious Experience. Again, let me plug what /u/kabrutos had to post about these arguments.
   
   But a specialized version of this sort of argument that /u/kabrutos didn't mention but is very powerful and fairly recent, are arguments that God's existence is a "properly basic belief". This argument usually goes by the name 'Reformed Epistemology'. Essentially, that you should accept God's existence for the same reason you should accept that you aren't in the matrix (i.e. you should reject atheist for the same reasons you should reject epistemic skepticism).
   
   Both Arguments from Religious Experience and Reformed Epistemology seem like as-good-as-it-gets for contemporary arguments for theism.
   
   -----
   
   Modal Ontological Arguments & Pascal's Wager
   
   There are updated contemporary versions of the Ontological Argument called the Modal Ontological Argument. But I don't put much plausibility behind them. Nevertheless, they are still living options as far as arguments for God's existence.
   
   There are probably contemporary attempts to save/prove Pascal's Wager, but I wouldn't expect much from them either. Both contemporary Modal Ontological Arguments and contemporary Pascal's Wager's are still open possibilities, but as of today I don't think they look very likely to work out in the end.
   
   ____
   
   Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism
   
   Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism has always been my favorite argument for theism. Sorry, I don't have anywhere better to recommend you read up on it than its Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism
   
   Although, I do think Plantinga's argument fails.