Posted on 08/01/2006 12:42:58 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback
In the first chapter of their new book, 20 Compelling Evidences that God exists, Ken Boa and Robert Bowman write, “We don’t mean to discourage you from reading the rest of this book. But in the interest of full disclosure, we should tell you that, in a sense, there is only one good reason to believe that God exists: because it’s true.”
That statement is both profound and well expressed. Unfortunately, these days it’s not the kind of statement you can make in public without having scorn heaped upon your head. As the authors jokingly point out, the popular viewpoint regarding truth is, “Anyone who believes that he is right and others are wrong is intolerant.” Now that’s self-contradictory on its face, but it’s almost certain to be thrown at you if you assert a truth claim.
That’s why Boa and Bowman have titled their book 20 Compelling Evidences that God Exists—because they recognize that for any claim to truth to be taken seriously in today’s culture, it needs solid evidence to back it up. As the authors write, “There are many such evidences, but they all have value because they help us see that the God of the Bible is real.” In fewer than two hundred pages, they clearly and concisely examine some of today’s most pervasive worldviews and their flaws. Then they present their case for God’s existence and His revelation of Himself through Jesus Christ.
What kind of evidences are they talking about? There’s an amazing variety. They don’t state it right upfront, but they are organizing their “20 compelling evidences” in a way that takes readers through the doctrines of creation, fall, redemption, and restoration—the four basic elements of the Christian worldview that I set forth in How Now Shall We Live?
They start with evidence about the universe and the origins of life. And they talk, for example, about how finely our solar system and our planet had to be calibrated to support life. At “an extremely conservative estimate,” they say, the probability of our planet being capable of sustaining us is about one in a billion. It had to be at just the right place in the solar system, which had to be at just the right place in the galaxy. Even the expansion of the universe had to happen at just the right rate in order for all of us to be here today.
From evidence about the universe, the authors move on to evidence of humanity’s sinful nature; then evidence of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection; and finally, evidence of those who have lived and died for Christ. Examining concepts ranging from Greek philosophy to archeology to the Big Bang theory to postmodernism, the authors make a powerful case for the existence of a loving Creator.
In short, I highly recommend Boa and Bowman’s book. They provide in a very readable form an excellent apologetic resource for Christians wondering how to defend their faith in a world that’s “tolerant” of everything except Christianity.
Ken Boa is a great apologist—one of the most engaging and popular teachers in our Centurion’s training program. You can visit our website, BreakPoint.org, to find out how you can get 20 Compelling Evidences that God Exists. While you’re there, be sure to check out some of our other Christian worldview resources.
Maybe so, but so what? If this is an apolegetics for god, it is a very weak one. IF the universe were different, there would be no life. IF evolution were different there might not be human life. Then no one would be here to argue about it, or to observe the Universe.
IF a different sperm united with a different ovum, each of us would be different.
IFs mean very little.
TheGunny simply quoted Christian scripture to you. Are you, then, saying that Christianity is just another of these many "dogmatic value systems?" I contend that it is not, and that it is not explicable by the facile explanations of atheists, such as that religion is a psychological crutch which makes believers feel secure; actually, Jesus promised his disciples they would have trouble in the world, that they would be persecuted and killed. If religion is just a means of enforcing external order, why did Jesus teach that it's not following rules which is important, but the content of your character? He ridiculed people who were sticklers for rules.
I think the unique nature of Christianity just might explain why TheGunny is confident that he does have the only truth.
Not if you're an atheist and "see no evidence" of Hell, as they "see no evidence" of God.
Not a compelling argument for a divine creation given that there are quite probably trillions of planets in the universe.
Even worse, if this Universe was supposedly "finely tuned for life", then the alleged designer really sucks at his job.
If the Universe is allegedly "tuned" for life, why is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999993+% (*) of it entirely hostile to life (due to hard vacuum, temperature, etc.), and only a vanishingly small percentage of it inhabitable? Wouldn't someone "designing" a habitat for life manage a much better livable portion than this? If that's "designed for life", someone did a truly crappy job of designing. That's more like the kind of results you'd expect by accident. If someone was tasked with designing a biohabitat for a space station or a zoo and did the job such that only 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000007% of its volume was actually suitable for anything to live in it, we wouldn't call that any kind of "intelligent design", and we'd immediately fire him.
Surely an allegedly ominipotent designer could come up with a design that minimized pointlessly wasted space. Even the naive notion of ancient man was a vastly more efficient design -- a lone Earth surrounded by nearby crystalline spheres studded with useful objects, like providing warmth from a small nearby Sun, light from a nearby small Moon, and little lights called stars and planets visible at night useful for navigation and telling the seasons. Now *that's* "tuned for life, as everything in it is dedicated to supporting the creatures in the habitat, without mindboggling amounts of wasted space and material.
Finally, anyone makes the "wow this is a really unlikely configuration for a universe, it must have been chosen that way" is revealing a gross logical fallacy -- unless they can determine how many other configurations this universe *could* have had, and over what range of physical constants (and good luck with *that* one), they really don't know whether this universe was likely or unlikely. For all they know, this is the only kind of physical universe that's actually possible in the first place. Furthermore, the "gosh, look how many constants work out well" argument is based on a similar ignorance -- how, exactly, have they determined that the various physical constants are all "free" to vary independently? For all they know, there's only *one* variable which necessarily determines the values of all the rest. Etc. etc. The folks making these goofy arguments are presuming far too much about things they really don't have a clue about yet. Until we actually understand how universes are generated, we have no grounds whatsoever for making any conclusions about how "likely" our variety might be. It's just philosophical masturbation by people who ought to know better, but then folks straining for "evidence" of deities often feel compelled in that direction anyway, no matter how shaky the ground.
Footnote: The volume of the portion of the Earth suitable for life is (very generously) the region up to five miles below the sea level to five miles above it. The Earth is 8000 miles in diameter. This means that the region of the Earth suitable for life is at most 2x109 cubic miles. The known Universe is 1x1033 light years in volume. There are roughly 7x1022 stars in it. Even under the most generous (and wildly unrealistic) scenario of every star having an Earthlike planet circling it, this means that the inhabitable fraction of the Universe is 2E10 mi^3 * 7E22 / 1E33 ly^3 / 2E38 mi^3/ly^3 = 7x10-39, or 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000007%. And if the Earth happens to be the only inhabitable planet after all, add twenty-two more zeros to that figure.
Many people "see no evidence" of Santa Claus either.
It is a very WILD ASSumption that there is going to be a divine punishment for breaking societal rules. Or that "Divine Laws" exist.
Societies make laws to protect each other and to agree on means of resolution of conflicts. And to achieve common goals, like freedom of the individual. Our Constitution is a good example. It is not based on any religion or divine commandments, but upon "we the people".
That comment was not aimed at you in particular. Check some of the earlier atheists' comments and you will see the kind of thing I was responding to.
Consider also that relativism, the belief that anybody's version of "the truth" is as good as anyone else's, is if fact a dogmatic assertion in and of itself, and an article of faith in the secular religion of the Left, not a traditional conservative belief at all. In science, no one thinks that an infinite number of theories are equally valid. Why should we believe that regarding religion?
[Thunderous applause, with angels singing in the background.]
Read my posts. I said that minor changes in some fundamental qualities would lead to a universe which would never expand, or to one which is all energy--not even any stars, let alone planets, organic matter, etc. How do you get life if there's nothing but light out there?
This is not my theory, or that of creationists. It's a problem physicists and cosmologists have thought about a great deal. They refer to the "anthropic principle," meaning that the universe just happens to be set up to allow us to appear, and to understand it.
Avoiding monsters under the bed is often accomplished for children via a goodnight kiss.
Avoiding other imaginary terrors can be achieved via learning about how the natural world actually works--it does so without ghosts, demons, spirits, gods, faeries, prayers, rituals, etc.
Whether the Universe can work without Pixies, I am not so sure. Pixies are a good explanation for why airplanes do not fall out of the sky. Who needs all this aerodynamics nonsense?
Nah. I've always believed that sexual reproduction was proof that God has a sense of humor.
I am pleased to hear your egotistical father survived the war by his piloting skills ( as a WW2 vet I salute his abilities and good fortune)----no doubt he can pinpoint just what gave him the ability to be so good as a pilot since his ego is so great----I would assume he never gave any thought to the possibility of a God who was protecting any one of the other crewmen aboard since your fathers massive ego took precedent over any other possible reasons for the B17 to survive that ordeal other than 'his' supreme abiliies---your story disproves nothing IMHO, just shows up one more braggart who was able to pass his beliefs down to his family who appear to accept his aethism with pride---some day we will all find out just who is correct and what do I lose by believing in my Redeemer and Lord--
Yes, you can make a pretty good case for this.
Dogmatic value systems routinely define "heretics", "blashphers", "infidels", and work to suppress them.
The hatred toward atheists is a good example. The St. Bartholemews Day massacre by Catholics is another. The massacre of the Albingensians is another. The hanging of Mary Dwyer for the "sin" of being a Quaker by the Puritans is another.
Dogmatic value systems--whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu--are the threat. Especially when organized into religious cults that oppose freedom.
In science, no one thinks that an infinite number of theories are equally valid. Why should we believe that regarding religion?
You seem to not understand my problem with post 66. I don't care that people believe what they want to believe. I have a problem with people dogmatically asserting messages like, "One day you will believe. Everyone will...on bended knee." Do you not see the distinction?
ping to wag and ping to self for later reading.
How can we prove it exists at all? It could all be a delusion.
Meanwhile, in Universe 847B the beings of pure energy have found if any of their fundamental constants were different, their universe would be filled with useless matter and thus incapable of supporting life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.