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.
>Chapter and verse please.<
The very fact that you doubt, while others believe, and that you ask for chapter and verse proves that you have free will. No chapter and verse are needed.
I hear ya,Paved.
The essence of God is not something than cannot be intellectualized.His power must be FELT.
I'm not mad or upset at Mineral and others who deny His existence.I was just like them long ago.Their disbelief doesn't make them bad people.Only folks that are missing out on something very special and beautiful.
Beg your pardon?
Show me just once where free will is used to describe how one comes to faith. Man's behavior does not add teaching to Scripture.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
< crickets>
Great point regarding people who live in the country versus those in cities.
I was fortunate to be able to spend summers at places like Tahoe and Bolinas.Being surrounded by nature made my heart open up to God and His miracles.
I thought this site wasn't suppopsed to have blatant solicitation.
Good point.
I heard a quote once-"Those who most vociferously deny God are the ones in the most desperate need for His love"
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." - Hebrews 11:1
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world...." - Psalms 19:1-4a
Faith isn't blind. We see the evidence of God everywhere we look.
And Faith isn't a feeling you have. It is your answer, i.e. actions, to the evidence you see around you.
Some look to His word to figure everything out. Others try to figure it out all by themselves.
Each to his own, and let neither raise his hand to the other.
You have succinctly summarized the fashion in which rights are purely illusory. Belief does not alter reality. If the atheist is wrong, they still have the rights granted by God. Gravity does not disappear if you disbelieve in it.
What you have done is provide evidence for the fact that "rights" in the immutable sense do not exist. People assert them in the same way a child asserts Santa Claus -- those assertions determine no objective reality on their own. If such rights were an objective reality, they could not be routinely violated.
One can only come to the conclusion that it does not matter where one asserts rights come from (of if they exist at all), because the reality is the same regardless. Relying solely on the arbitrary (and probably false) belief of your neighbor for good will is a flimsy protection at best. Fortunately, the motivation for being a decent person is the same as it always has been regardless of belief: it is to the long term benefit of the individual to be a good neighbor, and those that are decent prosper. Prosperity and happiness is all the motivation most people need. For everyone else, no belief is going to keep them out of trouble for long.
I would make the tangential observation that most of the atheists I know, and I know many living where I live, are conservatives. The belief that compels them to be conservative is that conservatism is rational, and little more. Everything else follows.
Thanks for posting those verses. However, evidence, in my definition is tangible. Faith is an intangible thing, powerful as it is.
The thing is, people have faith in what they have learned. You have faith in a particular deity. Others have faith in other deities or in other beliefs.
Faith is not evidence, I'm afraid. It is unquestioned belief. That's not a bad thing, but it's not evidence.
I have faith in many things.
If Colson's description is to be believed, it isn't.
For example, there are two distinct fallacies in the statement: "At "an extremely conservative estimate," they say, the probability of our planet being capable of sustaining us is about one in a billion."
1. Even if this estimate (that a planet bearing intelligent life is a one-in-a-billion occurence), that means about a hundred of them in this galaxy, and a similar number in each other galaxy of similar size. That doesn't imply anything terribly special about us.
2. A more fundamental problem is that the argument is circular. Yes, it's unlikely that a planet just like Earth would happen by chance... but if things had been a bit different, the somewhat different inhabitants that would arise on the somewhat different world that would exist instead would be just as entitled to consider themselves to be amazingly unlikely.
It's like claiming that a golfer displayed superhuman aim by sending the ball onto the particular blade of grass where it landed, rather than on some other blade two inches to the left or right.
I like it best split into three using terminology I've heard:
Agnostics, who as you said neither believe nor disbelieve, on the fence.
"Weak" atheists, who are basically based on skepticism: they reject the proposition that there are gods because there is no good evidence of their existence, just as there is no good evidence for Santa actually existing, but they realize the logical nightmare it is to to make the positive statement "There are no gods."
"Strong" atheists who flat out say "There are no gods."
And among all you will have a percentage who are evangelicals who must convince everyone they're right and fight to rid the world of those not like them, just like you have with Christians and Muslims.
Personally, I'm "weak." I do agree with the Newdow types that "Under God" shouldn't be in the pledge, nor should "In God We Trust" be on our money. But I'm a practical person, we have a lot more important issues in this country to fix right now. The wording on my money is about the least of my problems.
For a sufficiently weak or ignorant definition of "evidence". If the evidence was so compelling, faith would be unnecessary. Do not over-extend your argument; misrepresenting the truth is a poor way to bring people into the fold.
It's very simple, "god-given rights" is replaced with "natural rights." It's the concept that rights aren't given by God, but that we, simply by virtue of being human, have certain rights that can't be taken away. Natural rights are derived from natural law, which in general encompasses both the concept of "god-given rights" and "natural rights."
What about those like me, who were like you long ago? I know what I'm "missing out" on, and I don't miss it at all. To me, no comfort or happiness is better than false comfort and happiness. That's probably why I abhor mind-altering drugs, including most prescription painkillers.
That's exactly like another one I've heard, "Those who speak out most against gays are themselves frustrated closet gays."
99.99999% of this whole collossal Universe has conditions of heat, cold, extreme pressure, vacuum, intense radiation, and other conditions which make life (or even the formation of organic molecules) impossible. Thus life is a virtual impossibility.
"How can we prove it exists at all?"...Decartes solved that one.
Ha! You mean, "I think I think, therefore I think I am?"
"It could all be a delusion."...Even if it is, we're still alive in enough of a sense to *have* that delusion.
Oh? Maybe we're somebody else's delusion.
Now, would you care to address anything I actually wrote?
Maybe later when I get back from shopping. (Seriously, I'd love to accommodate you.) For right now, I'm just illustrating that we all necessarily start out with certain unproveable assumptions. "Credo ut Intelligam" -- I believe in order to understand.
I think you might be having a stroke. Lie down and await the paramedics.
The key combination is 1)industrialization, giving the means to kill en masse (and the larger population of potential victims in the first place) and 2)total control.
The Christian church never really had the second, and hasn't been anywhere close to it in modern times (between internal fractionalization and competition with secular institutions). Radical Islam is dangerous because it does have total control of some nations, but fortunately lacks access to large numbers of victims who will go down without an effective fight -- if it did, do you doubt for one moment that it would establish death camps and consider them to be divinely blessed?
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.