Abstract

In the realm of natural theology, the question of what constitutes a successful argument has intrigued scholars for centuries. This paper delves into this inquiry by analyzing three prominent criteria: persuasion, acceptance of premises, and cumulative case. Our findings reveal that none of these criteria, when considered individually, suffices for a truly successful argument. Instead, we propose a novel approach—a process-oriented model—that conceptualizes religious beliefs as dynamic outcomes emerging from multifaceted interactions. This perspective highlights several key points: First, selecting a single criterion for all arguments or attempting to classify diverse arguments based on a uniform standard is challenging due to the lack of consensus on the goals, methods, sources, and scope of natural theology. Second, it is more beneficial to focus on the collective advantages and strengths of these criteria. Third, we should avoid perceiving the criterion for a successful argument as one-dimensional; instead, we view it as an ongoing process that allows each criterion to consider the merits of others despite its own limitations. Fourth, by adopting this process-oriented approach, we can explore the interplay and contextual relevance of these three criteria across different argument types and stages. By embracing a holistic process perspective, we unlock deeper insights into natural theology.