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.
God is good. I had no upbringing in any faith either and God reached down and grabbed me too. I am so eternally grateful and humbled by His love for me.
Exactly. He gave us all these senses to experience things. You forgot sex though. I'd put that on in place of beer, or coffee. I would add pizza though. Oh, and music alone is reason to believe in God.
Silverback isn't an atheist.
Oops, correction: "nuclear physicist" not physician
My dear MineralMan, for whom I have such esteem: your statement is not true.
"For us men, and for our salvation, He came down from heaven." He made Himself seeable, hearable, touchable. He made Himself physical evidence.
I invite you to look at Post 36 on this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1675922/posts
I don't expect you to thwap your forehead and say, "Aha! I agree!" I just want you see that "the very nature of a supernatural entity is that there is no physical evidence of it," which you suppose to be self-evident, practically a tautology, is quite mistaken.
ping...
http://www.ffrf.org/foxholes/
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_urb_foxholes.htm
http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/;_ylt=AlyvVcBHgMc17kCM4SumEJLpFQx.?qid=1006053112726
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/133061.htm
http://www.atheistfoxholes.org/about.php
(from the last) Would God even want people to believe merely because they were under great pressure and very afraid? Can such a faith lead to a life of faith and love which is supposed to be the foundation of religions like Christianity? Is the claim that there are no atheists in foxholes meant to imply that atheists aren't "really" disbelievers and actually harbor a secret belief in God? Perhaps, but it is a false implication and can't be taken seriously. Is it meant to imply that atheism is inherently "weak" while theism represents "strength?" Once again, that may be the case - but it would also be a false implication.
Besides, even if it were true that there were no atheists in foxholes, that's not an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes.
Not a compelling argument for a divine creation given that there are quite probably trillions of planets in the universe.
There's approximately 80 billion galaxies with an approximate 400 billion stars each. 32 sextillion stars. How many planets?
So how do you explain the other non-Atheist ideologies/countries during the 20th century, not murdering tens of millions of people as did the Atheist ones? Checkmate.
I agree. I might also point out that Jesus is fundamentally different from the gods described by MineralMan as merely a projection of human rules for societal order; Jesus came not to give or enforce laws, but to save us from ourselves and spare us from punishment for breaking the rules.
"Since there are, and have been, so many of these deities, which one is the correct one? The answer is that it is whichever one is the dominant deity of your own culture."
The trouble with that thinking is that there are people willing to forego the easy path of believing in "the dominant deity of [their] culture" and believe in someone else. E.g. people in Muslim or Hindu countries who risk or suffer death rather that abandon their conversion to Christianity, or the early Christians who accepted martyrdom to the Romans. Kind of hard to rationalize that with your utilitarian "explanation" of religion.
BTT
Have you read anything seriously, systematically, or in depth about the ordinary rules of historical evidence?
What's your point?
A little Googling with keywords like C.S. Lewis, pagan, myth shows up some v-e-r-y interesting things.
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.