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.
I actually had in mind 28 and a half billion trillion, but whats a few billion trillion in the grand scheme of things.
Many people "see no evidence" of Santa Claus either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When I was a small child my parents would tell me that Santa Claus would bring me presents for Christmas, and on Christmas morning I would awaken very early and go and look under the tree and there would be the presents! Irrefutable proof of the existence of Santa Claus! Now that Great Pumpkin fellow is a horse of a different color.
The question is, was it by design, or chance? Occam's Razor would say it was the latter.
The DOI is NOT the Constitution. The DOI is not the governing body of the USA. It is a nice 'declaration', but it has no force of law. Protestors make declarations all the time, but they are not laws.
The article you cite, indeed the entire Constitution, makes absolutely no mention of atheists or pagans. I only cited the Constitution of the United States. What article do you pretend that I cited?
When one assumes office under our Constituion, one pledges to uphold it over all other faith beliefs. We are a Republic of laws. Faith beliefs do not trump laws.
The Constitution makes no mention of Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccams, Native American beliefs or pixies. What 'lesson' do you intend to derive from this? That your God is favored?
"And nobody, not even Jesus, had the slightest clue about electrons or atoms. Not the slightest clue about energy. Not the slightest clue about democracy."
What the heck does that have to do with the fact that fundamental physical quantities can't be different from what they are, or life would be impossible?
AFAIK, quarks never occur in an unbound state in ordinary matter--you know, what we evolved primates are made of? Anyway, you say the charge on a quark may not be an integral multiple of that on the electron, but it is 1/n, where n is an integer. It is not something like 3.2895038x 10^24 the charge on the electron. There is a very simple mathematical relationship.
Actually, Christianity is an excellent foundation for a free society, because Christians know that the things they value--virtue and love--cannot be coerced. Forcing people to "do good" is no credit to them. That's one reason why forced sharing--like government redistribution of wealth--is counter to Christianity.
I majored in one of those fields you mention. Again, you atheists are completely unable to avoid slurs, insults, flames, etc. I can remember the guys in grad school who got their kicks ridiculing fundamentalists. Funny thing: they weren't very nice to anyone else, either. Nor were they the ones who did real, creative, original work. They were hacks who regurgitated what they were told by the faculty. Very very few really great scientists are dogmatic, militant, mocking atheists.
"all Christians are theists but not all theists are Christians"
O.K., I'll buy that.
Atheism still sucks.
;^)
"Without entering into the question of Gods, what makes a physicist or cosmologist believe that he is capable of determining whether an alternate universe could support life?"
And you think they are not qualified? I think you should read what they say. The ones I have read are very well informed about other fields of science. Nor do I know of any biologists or other scientists who can contradict them, or even try. Remember, we are not talking about conditions which are merely different in the way submarine hot springs are, or the surface of Mars is. We are talking about conceptual universes in which no matter is possible at all, or in which the Big Bang would already have reversed and collapsed, without leaving enough time for life to form.
Like the Albigensians?
Actually it was the acceptance of the big bang theory that turned most astronomers to the existence of God (if they did not already believe)
Scientific evidence points to a definite beginning, and refutes the idea that the system has always been here. No matter when you believe the universe was created, even 15 billion years (the most common estimate I have seen lately) is not enough time to account for the evolution of the universe and all the life in it.
Occam's Razor would say it was the latter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Rip's chain saw would say the same.
Reading his book Mere Christianity is even better!
Stay on topic. He wasn't in a foxhole. Foxholes are the only true path to God.
talking about conceptual universes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am simply a little confused. If we are going to conceptualize whole universes can we not conceptualize an entirely different basis for life?
"I only cited the Constitution of the United States. What article do you pretend that I cited?"
OK, here's an exact quote from your earlier post:
"There is not a single mention in the Constitution about any god or about Christ. Art VI says atheists, pagans, etc. are equal because there "shall be no religious test."
Can you cite an oath of office in which "one pledges to uphold it [the Constitution] over all other faith beliefs."
I believe the oath actually says one will "uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic," or something close to that. No mention of other "faiths," let alone other religions. The Founders would have scoffed at the idea that officeholders were supposed to give up their religion.
Right, whatever you say.
There's abundant evidence that technology advances exponentially. Abundant evidence that as conscious man increasingly understands nature he increasingly controls nature. Metallurgy, steam engines, nuclear reactors, molecular nanotechnology, cloning animals, rovers on mars and etc.
Fans oscillate, why not universes?
It took conscious man 3,000 years of accumulated knowledge to create the oscillating fan. Twenty-nine years later the electron microscope was invented. Seven years later was the first atomic bomb. Why not understand the laws of nature -- initial conditions -- that caused the big bang and Universe? I see no impediment to reason.
By the way, I am convinced that trying to prove or disprove the existence of God by reason is and always will be a futile effort.
BTW, what you are decribing is design by intelligent beings. Do you think that we are unique in that capacity, we humans who have been here but for the blink of an eye?
Put it this way: the consensus of informed scientists is that minor changes in physical constants would make any kind of life they can conceive of, esp. intelligent life, impossible. In fact, they would make our universe impossible. If there are completely different forms of life possible, life which could exist in some of these alternate universes, their basis is completely unknown in terms of present knowledge, so talking about them is essentially metaphysical, not scientific. And we all know how objectivists, logical positivists, and militant atheists hate metaphysics. It's like talking about Santa Claus or the Pixies, for Darwin's sake.
One can, however, plug different values into equations which are parts of well-supported physical theory, and conclude that they would produce a universe with certain characteristics; characteristics radically different from the universe we see.
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.