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.
Agreed, there are many more important things to deal with. Preventing the populace from being easily distracted from these issues by wily politicians is the challenge!
The 'In God We Trust' motto is actually alright by me because there is no set definition of the word 'God', and so the statement is not sectarian in nature. For a non-theist, it could just as well mean 'logos', 'intuition', a Unifying Theory of Physics or even The Force.
If they put 'In Jesus We Trust' then a more clear case could be made for a violation of the 1st Ammendment.
About the only example I can recall of a regime ruled by a Christian overlord without any real checks and balances were the out-of-sight, out-of-mind colonies.
Suffice it to say that the Belgian Congo fails to impress as an indication that religion in and of itself prevents mass murder.
It most certainly is an absolute statement, unless the word "no" (or perhaps the word "is") has some hitherto unknown meaning.
“I am an atheist, and have been near death a couple of times. Not once did I call on any deities.”
I guess the better question is who will you call for after death?
As stated above, the reasons are 1)lack of political power (e.g. in western civilization, neither the church nor the state has enough control over the population to kill en masse, with the sole (as far as I recall) exception of the Belgian Congo) and 2)lack of opportunity (e.g. I'm sure the Iranian regime would love to kill millions of infidels in the name of religion if it could, but -- at least for now -- it can't).
If cats evolved into an intelligent species, it would be interesting to see what religion they would come up with. (I'm pretty sure they'd have to come up with something, if only as an attempt at explanation for how everything got to be.)
If one does not believe that hell exists, then there's no issue of self-interest involved.
It's like one of those spam e-mails telling you to click on a link to avoid having your eBay account suspended. If you don't think that the guy who sent he e-mail is really from eBay security, you have no interest in following the directions.
The recently deposed dictator of Liberia, Charles Taylor.
The former is just a bit of Cold War chest-thumping, apparently intended to insure that the tongue of a Kohm would burn with fire if he attempted to say the holy words.
As for the latter, if you're going to have a fiat currency, you might as well print a request for supernatural aid on it. ;-)
I sit corrected.
I am reminded of the old joke about someone taking a tour of Heaven and viewing the sections assigned to the various sects. As the tour passes one small section, the angelic guide starts whispering, and indicates that his charge should do likewise, because "they think they're the only ones up here".
Mate, if I'm calling for anybody 'after death' it will be for a doctor and a second opinion!
In any case, there is a more fundamental problem with this sort of anthropic argument -- only a universe where some form of intelligence arises can be observed, because there is nobody to observe the other kind. When the rules are "heads I win, tails doesn't count", a string of heads is guaranteed even if the coin is heavily loaded in favor of tails.
"I guess the better question is who will you call for after death?
"
Well, that's really not a question for an atheist. Atheists believe that life is life and that it ends at death.
After my death, my wife will have me cremated, and my ashes will be dumped into the Mississipi River off the Wabasha Bridge here in Saint Paul. That's my wish.
Of course, it won't matter to me, since my existence will have utterly ended.
The finite nature of life is what gives it savor. I have a short time on this planet. I must do my best to make the most of it.
Different religions have different notions about an afterlife. Some don't believe in it at all. Some encompass some sort of reincarnation. Christianity has this good place/bad place concept.
Whatever a person believes regarding this is fine with me. It's one of the things that gives a sort of definition to a life.
I've always wondered, though, about the Christian concept of heaven, especially for those sects of Christianity that have the "once saved, always saved" concept. I don't really see why anyone would bother to control their behavior once they were "saved." Indeed, I've known some self-styled Christians who did not.
It's all a matter of what you believe.
"I'm not mad or upset at Mineral and others who deny His existence.I was just like them long ago."
Well, I was just like you long ago, with a full-scaled belief in the Christian story. I seem to have outgrown it. That's why I have no animus towards Christians, or any other religious believers, for that matter.
Religion is a very useful thing.
We know "God" means theism, in our current implementation we all know it refers to the Christian god.
I just don't think it represents this country. E Pluribus Unum is much better.
It is an interesting fact that the universe Science now defines requires there to be a metaphysical causation for the physical to have come into existence. I'm curious, MineralMan, do you feel your atheism requires there are not any metaphysical 'things'?
LOL, life exists on Earth, that makes p=1. Life appeared on Earth in short order when Earth cooled. Now what exactly is questionable there Mr Science?
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.