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.
Um...no, it isn't profound. It's the intellectual equivalent of "Because I say so." I hope the logic in the rest of the book is better than that.
"Because I said so" is meant to stop further inquiry or investigation. "Because it's true" is a summation of information that follows.
Oh really? What's your 'proof'? There are a tremendous number of stories validating that saying.
Thank you and Amen. The Truth is the truth and there is no other Truth.
"The very nature of a supernatural entity means that there is no physical evidence of it."
Nope. God will not hop into a cupola to allow an assay, or pose for a photograph, true. If God, as Christians believe, entered into time and space, there was physical evidence in the form of his person and actions, and a series of unique events in the form of his miracles and his resurrection. Of course, you do need to trust the apostles, who were witnesses and wrote about these unique events and action. Their writings have an historical context. Their writings and the history might be a better place to start your "examination."
"I think it is a mistake for folks to try to concoct evidence of the existence of deities."
I think is is a mistake to prejudge the contents of a book before it has been read.
"I've already read so many of them that one more won't be too trying."
I was going to write something about humility, but at least you are still reading the books. I hope that your continued reading brings something positive to your life.
They were also in the 20th Century, with a much higher population to kill and much more efficient methods of killing and transportation. If the Muslims had this in the 700s, the slaughter of Christians in Europe would have been impressive. But then if the Christians had it, their slaughter of the pagans in that same century would have been equally impressive. Charlemagne would have been much more effective in Northern Europe if he'd had guns, bombs and artillery, and the Muslims would have had a great time.
Creationists must fare the worst in Las Vegas because they don't know anything about odds.
They always bet on life as we know it evolving. They forget that we are just one of many options, and the bet should properly be about any kind of life evolving. I am always amazed at the hubris, to think that we are the one and only, the desired result that the odds must be created for.
Which deity is the correct one?I think they all are just different names for the same higher force.Some cultures like the Yoruba or ancient Greeks and Egyptians had multiple gods and deities but they all represented parts of the human existence that we could not explain.
I really think most civil societies would break down a lot faster if religion(which is an institution I have minimal faith in)was totally discarded and we lived our lives by a moral code based on the premise there was nothing beyond this earthly existence,which,face it,is pretty bleak for most of the world.Religion exerts necessary social control over our basest instincts and appetites and is a pre-requisite for a civilized society.
Personally,I was raised completely absent from any church.My family believed it was a crutch for the weak.I never even went to a church till I was almost 25 and that was to a black Holiness Church in Athens,Georgia-blew my mind BTW-.
I came to believe in a God because I finally saw that my life was a series of events and they had a discerible pattern to them that had to more than random coincidence.People who came into my life to save me from disaster.I attributed these people to divine intervention along with the fact that I get dreams and visions that I feel are messages from God that I need to listen to.So I do.
Hey,maybe you are right.I find I agree with you on a lot of political topics but I hold back on your atheistic leanings.I sure hope there is a God and an afterlife cause this is sheer madness down here!
"The concept of a deity is something that every culture seems to have reinvented." Yet every culture has pne. So the concept of a deity is not reinvented, only the nature of the concept.
Which is the correct deity? That would be for each individual to decide. Even an atheist such as yourself worships a deity. In the case of the atheist, the deity is the individual.
"Human beings live in societal groups. For such groups to work, there must be rules. It's easiest to assign such rules to a deity and threaten the breakers of the rules with some sort of punishment from the deity or deities. That way, the rules are externalized and nobody in the society needs to take responsibility for them."
A rather cynical view, IMO. Yes, each group must have rules. That all groups assign such rules to a deity is not necessarily the easiest path for an individual, or a society, to take. It is all well and good to rely on divine inspiration and fear to impart rules and consequences, but it isn't very practical to leave it to the dieties to provide rules and consequences. There is very little that is easy about the process.
It would be easiest to impose those rules and consequences by one strong-willed individual through force of arms.
"Oddly enough, the basic set of moral values are pretty much the same in all societies. One must worship the deity of that society. One may not murder members of that society. One must respect the sexual mores of that society. One must respect the property of other members of that society.
Pretty basic stuff, shared by virtually every society."
This is pretty compelling evidence that a deity IS at work, regardless of the nature of that deity.
First...No offense, but because you are an atheist, you are starting from a place where you believe there is no deity, so why would you believe there is evidence of a deity? You wouldn't, so your point--though it is honestly advocated, I'm sure--is no more illuminating than when a liberal says there's no such thing as an economic recovery caused by tax cuts. He doesn't believe in trickle-down effects or that anything benefiting the rich could be good for the rest of us, so he's not going to believe there can be solid evidence of those things.
Second, the idea that the supernatural could not leave evidence in the natural world is akin to believing there would never be evidence of ships left on the land. If the supernatural were real, we would only think it was real because we had some sort of contact with it...and contact would be an opportunity for evidence. And if the mission of those supernatural beings was to redeem the natural sphere, there would be even more evidence, just as ships have docks and shipyards to show they exist, because their purpose is wrapped up in contact with the land.
I'll be buying a copy of this latest attempt to prove the existence of a deity. I've already read so many of them that one more won't be too trying.
For you, such a purchase would be a waste of money. I suggest instead that you read More Than A Carpenter by Josh McDowell. Though Carpenter is McDowell's most important book, I'd also suggest the book he wrote with Don Stewart, Answers to Tough Questions Skeptics Ask About the Christian Faith.
I see your point that many arguments for God's existence are circular or seem circular to a non-believer. That's why I'm suggesting McDowell's book, because it proves the Resurrection as a historical event. That's like proving there are ships by taking someone on a tour of a shipyard. No circular argument, that! And if it doesn't convince you, then the subject is pretty much closed.
Most astronomers believe in God.
As far as I know, none of them believe in a steady state Universe.
Where are the aliens?
I'll elaborate on that question if you'd like.
Yes, but then we're left with the question of why those levels of killing did not go on in lands that did embrace worship of a Creator. If the presence of atheism means nothing but the presence of industrialized weapons does, then why didn't the Christian nations slaughter all their inconvenient citizens? Why didn't we see death camps in those countries, or others where a firm religious mindset was prevalent?
MineralMan has a point, AU. And besides, the lack of atheists in foxholes wouldn't prove God's existence even if it were true. It owuld only prove something about atheists and foxholes.
"For you, such a purchase would be a waste of money. I suggest instead that you read More Than A Carpenter by Josh McDowell. Though Carpenter is McDowell's most important book, I'd also suggest the book he wrote with Don Stewart, Answers to Tough Questions Skeptics Ask About the Christian Faith."
You assume I have not read those books. I read both of them years ago. They do not impress. I'm more interested in reading apologetics that are a bit more challenging. Josh writes for a naive audience. I stopped being a target for his arguments way back in the 1960s, although I still read such books when they appear.
I'm sure they're useful for some, but they're pretty simplistic.
'First...No offense, but because you are an atheist, you are starting from a place where you believe there is no deity, so why would you believe there is evidence of a deity? '
Why not? Your reasoning is a little fallacious. An atheist chooses not to believe in God on the basis of the evidence to hand. Very rarely because the atheist is anti-theist. Should further evidence come to light in support of a deity, that belief is, for most atheists including myself, quite amenable to change.
That said, my Anglican upbringing always taught me that faith is faith pure and simple. That people need material evidence to support their faith is surely indicative of an essentialy weakness in their faith?
The 'atheists' and 'foxholes' argument is quaint, but actually supports atheism over theism by identifying a key drive behind theism; the human desire for comfort and emotional security. The fact that a human mind, when under the extreme pressures of war, finds solace in the belief of a higher power is completely consistent with psychology.
As it is though, I'm not sure if one did the math that the precentage of atheists that have served their country would significantly differ from the percentage of theists. I'd have to look it up.
The problem with the atheists in foxholes theory is that it can be disproven with a single example. I will give you one. My father was a B-17 pilot in WWII. He was, and is, an atheist. His plane was hit by a burst of flak. It lost an engine, and was on fire. My father took shrapnel in his thigh. His copilot sufferd a head injury and was unconscious.
By sheer dint of will and the amazing fortitude of the B-17, he got that plane back to its base in Italy and landed it. All crew members survived.
I once asked him if he had called on God. He just laughed and said, "What God?" I was the one flying the plane, not some invisible God."
There is the example that disproves the cliche. There are many, many more such examples. It's just one of those things that people like to say, while having no idea whether it is true or not.
Animal Planet produced a special called "The Future Is Wild" which was supposedly written with the help of evolutionary scientists, though i'd sure like to know what barrel-botom they scraped these guys off of. It was supposed to show how species would evolve here on Earth over the next few million years, but some of the conclusions were beyond ludicrous. For example, any evolutionaist will tell you sharks have been virtually unchanged for about 300 million years, but on this show they suddenly developed a sophisticated social culture like dolphins, changed the type of prey they hunted and became pack hunters, and evolved a communications system that flashed messages via bioluminescent panels on their skin. They never felt a need to explain what sort of evolutionary pressure would lead to changes that radical.
Yeah, riiiiight.
Because by then religion didn't have much power over the governments of most of the world. Most Christian countries had converted to democracy, a secular check against the crusades that the churches may have wanted to launch.
While I am not religious, I do like the check-and-balance system between the secular and religious that most Western countries have.
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.