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.
These things have nothing whatever to do with your assertion that the church or Christianity suppressed science. The evidence from history is clear: the Christian West was more conducive to the rise of science than any other culture, and was also the culture in which free economies and liberal democracy arose. Just a coincidence, right? How come all these good things came out of the awful Christian world? Maybe "Santa Claus" brought science, and didn't get around to the other cultures? Maybe "Pixies" rained magic dust on Europe and nowhere else? Inquiring minds want to know.
"Christians can't even agree on Catholic or Lutheran doctrines. Catholics are schismed into 12 or so groups; Protestants into 189 sects."
In a previous post you said the Lutherans alone had 192 distinct branches. Which is it? Better check one of those old atheists books of talking points again.
"It is clear that 340,000 pastors and priests have an agenda to keep them supported without doing anything productive."
Wow. What a grand slur. Actually, if someone wants to be supported without doing anything productive, he should look to a government program for help. The next best place might be academia.
"
This also puzzles me. If believers are content with their souls, why not leave mine alone?
I suspect that believers are very insecure, because they know in their hearts that Noah's Flood never happened; because they know that evolution is firmly based on real science from many branches.
ID is merely an attempt to prove the existence of a certain god--the god of Leviticus morality. IDists have never once contributed a single thing to medicine or technology.
IDists remain ignorant not only of biology, geology, etc., but hellbender and the like continue to discount the pixie theory.
The pixie thoery does not rely on any text from 2000 years ago, but we make it up as we go along. This is more productive, and saves pixies from silly arguments against them.
As a believer, pixies and rain gods get along quite well.
"Come back and try again when you learn enough about the world to be able to hold up your end of the conversation, I have better things to do than correct all of your elementary misconception"
Never fails. Atheists get back to their old standby, personal insults, when they can't respond logically. You have completely evaded my argument that there is no reason at all to believe that quantity of life, rather than its existence, would be important to God, or any "mythical" creator-being. Maybe the existence of life requires that it NOT be found in many places. Maybe the rest of space is reserved for development of stars, then for exploding supernovas to manufacture heavy elements. You did know that those "goofy" cosmologists think that's necessary for life to exist, don't you. Please name who the "goofy" ones are, and the "non-goofy" ones who agree with you.
You think God is "wasting" space. What is space "worth?" Why should it be "conserved," when there is so much of it?
Are you in fact aware of physicists who are creationists, especially literal Biblical fundamentalists? Name them, and demonstrate that they are the ones who argue for the anthropic principle. You implied that people who believe in "fine-tuning" are a bunch of creationists. Now prove it. I'm calling your bluff. Let's go.
You've gone into insult mode, so I know you're in trouble. You're wounded.
Religions, churches are institutions of men. When the leaders of institutions place themselves into the role of being absolute (God's) authority on Earth, bad things are bound to happen.
While I am not religious, I do like the check-and-balance system between the secular and religious that most Western countries have.
If the faith of a people leads them to have bloody thirsty beliefs, secular "balance" is pretty useless.
Perhaps you're an agnostic ... you appear too intelligent to be an atheist.
Aha! Feynman once said: "Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it."
You have the same problem as millipedes.
When asked about which foot comes first, they go into spasms.
Real millipedes do not have this problem. Christian apologeticists have more complicated beliefs than any millipede has legs.
I hardly know where to begin with your post--so many fallacies and distortions; so little time.
"ID is merely an attempt to prove the existence of a certain god--the god of Leviticus morality"
Please provide documentation that ID is intended to prove the existence of the God, Yahweh of Leviticus. If someone wanted to prove that, wouldn't he at least describe that God? ID advocates have done nothing of the kind.
Of course, I've asked you to document other fallacious statements you've made, such as that the Constitution mentions atheists and pagans. You never did, because you can't.
So you go back to "pixie" humor. Ha....ha...ha. (Forced simulation of laughter)
"When asked about which foot comes first, they go into spasms."
Actually, millipedes are pretty well coordinated, or else they'd be tripping all over themselves. Just the way you do with your 192 Lutheran subdivisions within a larger group (Protestants) having fewer total subdivisions. I guess there must be a negative number of sects somewhere in the Protestant set, right?
Still waiting for those references to atheists in the U.S. Constitution....waiting....waiting....snore.
There seem to me to be fundamentalist factions on both sides. Each claiming to know "the will of God/Allah".
Just curious.
Hellbender, you are at least consistent in dishonesty. It shows what your "christian values" really are. Of course, I never made any such statement.
Prove me wrong. Quote my words exactly, if you dare.
And admit that you have lied. I said that the Constitution of the United States of America assures equality for atheists, pagan beliefs of Native Americans, and non-believers, owing to Art VI.
If you have EVIDENCE to the contrary, please post it.
What do you have against equality for Native American beliefs??
"Don't presume that just because someone rolls their eyes and points out the fallacies in certain goofy "evidence for God" arguments, that they're an atheist."
I didn't presume anything, I'm talking about the ones who claim atheism.
"Has it ever occurred to you that they might be open-minded enough to look into a thread like this to see whether they might have overlooked something that might challenge their atheism and require them to change their position?"
LOL if only
" Plus, of course, threads with titles like these often contain a lot of atheist bashing (because, you know, they must be real fools"
Theres more atheist bashing going on in Christian churches than on FR.
if they don't fall to their knees in the face of fallacious arguments and weak "evidence" of God like this), so I imagine a number of them would come by to defend their beleaguered group."
This kind of goes back to your "open minded" comment. I would hazard to guess they are atheists because, to them, ALL evidence since the beginning of time is "fallacious arguments and weak evidence of God.
I'm just one of the "naive audience", as one egotistical and superior atheist says, but I think some, not all, but some atheists join these threads hoping to steal a soul from God, but thats just my humble opinion.
Neither.
There seem to me to be fundamentalist factions on both sides. Each claiming to know "the will of God/Allah".
I agree, there are "fundamentalist" factions on both sides, just as there are "secular" factions on both sides.
Obviously better than Christian churches. Who are uncoordinated into Catholic (western rite, eastern rite varieties) and Protestant sects, about 189+/- denominations, sects and cults.
Christians can't even agree on whether Mormons, Unitarians, Christian Scientists, Copts, Jehovah's Witnesses, Quakers,... are "true Christians".
Whether Southern Baptists have the "one true faith" is disputed by Roman Catholics. And so on for all the sectarian divisions and schisms.
What a wacky idea.
There is no evidence for a "soul". There is no evidence any god. (Rain gods excepted.)
The notion of a "soul" is merely a theological construct and abstraction. It does not meet the smell test. There is zero evidence.
Yes, we are a republic of laws. So tell me, where are *your* rights derived?
"There is no evidence for a "soul". There is no evidence any god."
Then why are you on this thread?
If you believe the concept of a soul is wacky, you must believe the Holy Bible is also wacky.
Does it make you feel good to deride Christians?
Does it give you a sense of worth that your own life is lacking? or
Do you feel it's your duty to convince as many as possible that there is no God?
I'm really curious about this although the "wacky" made me
hear you saying "What a wacky idea" in Elmer Fudds voice.
"So tell me, where are *your* rights derived?"
My guess would be his rights consist of exactly what the law prescribes, in which case he has no rights or
Whatever he can get away with.
bump for later read
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.