I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist

[Gary]

I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist

http://www.gnpcb.org/product/1581345615/contents#extra

I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist argues that Christianity requires the least faith of all worldviews because it is the most reasonable. The authors lay out the evidence for truth, God, and the Bible in logical order and in a readable, non-technical, engaging style. A valuable aid to those interested in examining the reasonableness of the Christian faith, Geisler and Turek provide a firm challenge to the prior beliefs of doubters and skeptics.

http://www.gnpcb.org/product/1581345615/contents#extra

Gary: I can highly recommend this book. As a former atheist myself (for 25+ years), I can see how logical and well researched this book is. It will challenge even the most skeptical atheist and strengthen the faith of any believing Christian.

Here are some of the comments about the book:

“Clear, complete, compellingâ€â€this terrific resource will help both Christians and seekers understand the rational basis for Christianity. I wish it had been available when I was an atheistâ€â€it would have saved a lot of time in my spiritual journey toward God!â€Â

“This extremely readable book brilliantly builds the case for Christianity from the question of truth all the way to the inspiration of the Bible. And the verdict is in: Christians stand on mounds of solid evidence while skeptics cling to nothing but their blind, dogmatic faith. If you’re still a skeptic after reading I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, then I suspect you’re living in denial!â€Â

“It is really true that atheism requires gobs of blind faith while the path of logic and reason leads straight to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek convincingly show why.â€Â

“No amount of evidence can convert an unbeliever to belief. That is solely the work of God. But what Norm Geisler and Frank Turek have done in this book should disturb anyone claiming to be an atheist . . . perhaps enough to persuade them to begin a search for the God who has been there all along.â€Â

“False ideas aimed at undermining and destroying the Christian faith constantly bombard high school and college students. This book provides an exceptionally good antidote to these false ideas. Geisler and Turek present the crucial information needed to avoid being swept away by the onslaughts of secular ideologies that cast science, philosophy, and biblical studies as enemies of the Christian faith.â€Â

“Geisler and Turek have pulled together a wide array of thorny questions and, as always, have responded with skill and insight. This is a valuable addition to the contemporary writings on Christian apologetics.â€Â

“I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist is vintage Norman Geislerâ€â€a logical, rational, and intellectual defense of the Christian faith. This collaboration with Frank Turek is ‘must reading’ for every professional or armchair philosopher.â€Â

“Anyone can understand this book’s crystal-clear explanation of how morality itself points to God. Atheists may believe in moral law, but without God they have no way to justify their belief.â€Â

As one who came to Christ after years of skepticism, I have a particular affection for Christian apologetics. It is one of my passions. There is an abundance of evidence for the reliability of Scripture, for the authority of the Bible as the inspired Word of God, and that the Bible accurately portrays the historical events it covers, including the earthly life of Jesus Christ. Indeed, powerful and convincing proof exists that Christianity is the one true religion, that the triune God who reveals himself in its pages is the one and only God of the universe, and that Christ died for our sins so that we may live.

Proof, of course, is no substitute for faith, which is essential to our salvation and for our communion with God. Nor is the study of apologetics disrespectful to our faith. Rather, it augments it, informs it, bolsters it, and reinvigorates it. Were it otherwise, the Bible would not say, “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have†(1 Pet. 3:15).

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist is the best single book I’ve seen to prepare believers to give the reasons for their faith, and for skeptics who are open to the truth. This book will serve as an indispensable evangelism tool, especially when dealing with nonbelievers with “intellectual†obstacles to the faith. As we know, the intellectual obstacles are usually just an excuse for nonbelievers, but when you remove the substance of their excuse they are left naked to confront their real obstacles, their real demons.

But I believe there’s another important reason for the scriptural mandate to “be prepared to give an answer.†It’s not just to help us effectively communicate the gospel. Being prepared will also arm us with the tools to resist certain nagging doubts that we encounter in moments of weakness. It willâ€â€because it marshals the evidence for Christianity fortify our faith.

http://www.gnpcb.org/product/1581345615/contents#extra

Foreword by David Limbaugh
http://www.gnpcb.org/assets/products/ex ... 5615.1.pdf

Preface: How Much Faith Do You Need to Believe This Book?
http://www.gnpcb.org/assets/products/ex ... 5615.1.pdf

Introduction: Finding the Box Top to the Puzzle of Life
http://www.gnpcb.org/assets/products/ex ... 5615.1.pdf

Enjoy! (If you DARE!)

:D :D

 

[Gary]

Contents

Foreword by David Limbaugh 7
Preface: How Much Faith Do You Need to Believe This Book? 13
Acknowledgments 15
Introduction: Finding the Box Top to the Puzzle of Life 17

Chapters

1. Can We Handle the Truth? 35
2. Why Should Anyone Believe Anything At All? 51
3. In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE 73
4. Divine Design 95
5. The First Life: Natural Law or Divine Awe? 113
6. New Life Forms: From the Goo to You via the Zoo? 137
7. Mother Teresa vs. Hitler 169
8. Miracles: Signs of God or Gullibility? 197
9. Do We Have Early Testimony About Jesus? 221
10. Do We Have Eyewitness Testimony About Jesus? 251
11. The Top Ten Reasons We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth 275
12. Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead? 299
13. Who Is Jesus: God? Or Just a Great Moral Teacher? 327
14. What Did Jesus Teach About the Bible? 355
15. Conclusion: The Judge, the Servant King, and the Box Top 377

Appendix 1: If God, Why Evil? 389
Appendix 2: Isn't That Just Your Interpretation? 402
Appendix 3: Why the Jesus Seminar Doesn't Speak for Jesus 409

:smt023

 

[Quath]

I read it and found many problems with it. I guess that should come as no surprise. ;)

Quath

 

[Gary]

Does that come as a surprise? Not at all. You do not do any thorough research and I know most of what you do is google-search research.

Did you BUY the book or are you (again) going to cut-n-paste from the web? IF you actually BOUGHT the book and still have it, then let us discuss particular topics and pages.

Ready?.....

:D

 

[Quath]

My grandmother sent me the book in a last ditch effort to convert me. I just found it. So what part do you want to discuss?

It has been about a year since I read it, so if you pick a chapter for discussion, I will refresh myself on it. The guy did make me think about a few things, but none of it was really about God so much as think about logic and philosophy. I think I had issue with every chapter to differet degree. So just pick and let me know.

Quath

 

[Gary]

One Chapter at a time....

Quath: My grandmother sent me the book in a last ditch effort to convert me.

Gary: Good for her. At least you will be without excuse.

Quath: I just found it. (1) So what part do you want to discuss? (2) It has been about a year since I read it, so (3) if you pick a chapter for discussion, I will refresh myself on it.

Gary: (1) Introduction (page 17) will be a good place to start. (2) As the book was only first published in 2004, it MUST be less than a year. Exactly when did your grandmother give it to you? I must say that I have several hundred books and I am often given books. I know when each was given to me. Most people select an occasion or write inside the book when they give me one. (3) Start with the Introduction (page 17).

Quath: (1) The guy did make me think about a few things, (2) but none of it was really about God so much as think about logic and philosophy.

Gary: (1) Actually, there are two authors. Often in the book, they reference which author is in fact writing! (2) Pages 73 to 217 (about 144 pages) are about God. We will get there.

Quath: (1) I think I had issue with every chapter to differet degree. (2) So just pick and let me know.

Gary: (1) If your past record of "research" is anything to go by, I can see why that would be the case. However, the book is well researched. I also have many of the books referenced in the notes and the appendix so we can expand on issues you do not understand. (2) Start with the Introduction (pages 17-32). What do you not understand about it?

 

[Quath]

(1) Introduction (page 17) will be a good place to start. (2) As the book was only first published in 2004, it MUST be less than a year. Exactly when did your grandmother give it to you? I must say that I have several hundred books and I am often given books. I know when each was given to me. Most people select an occasion or write inside the book when they give me one. (3) Start with the Introduction (page 17).

Yeah, it was probably earlier this year. She usually inscribes something, but she wasn't feeling good. She died a couple months after I read the book.

As I browse through the introduction, the first thing I object to is on page 23 where he says that the universe having a beginning and universe is eternal is mutually exclusive. However, it is not. If time has a beginning, then they are not exclusive.

I do agree with him that we are dealing with uncertainities and ultimately we are trying to decide which is most probable unstead of which is true. (page 24-25).

On 26-27, he outlines the scientific evidence. I disagree with it, but since it is addressed in more detail I will pass on it now.

On page 27, it says "One who claims to be a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs." I don't entirely agree with this. It double uses the meaning of belief. For example, I am skeptical of Santa Claus. According to this I believe in my disbelief. And that doesn't fully make sense.

The 12 points on page 28 was already addressed by someone else on another thread so I will skip it.

On page 31, it says "God has provided enough evidence in this life to convince anyone willing to believe, yet he also left some ambiguity so as not to compel the unwilling." I find the logic lacking. Either God is obvious or He is not. Either He proved Himself to the priests of Ba'al and Abraham and Israel and to Doubting Thomas (as Jesus) or He did not. Either way He is either observable or is not.

Anyway, that is my review of the intro.

Quath

 

[Wertbag]

I would consider reading the book if I could find a copy at the local library, I just don't like the idea of paying for a book that I could be disappointed in (as i have been so many times before). yes I have read numerous books that were recommended to me, but I still have many that I can pickup from the library without needing to pay and/or import them to NZ.

 

[Gary]

Did the universe have a beginning or not?

Quath: "As I browse through the introduction, the first thing I object to is on page 23 where he says that the universe having a beginning and universe is eternal is mutually exclusive. However, it is not. If time has a beginning, then they are not exclusive....

Gary: Quath, please explain your logic here.

As I see it, "The univese had a beginning" means that there is a point at which there is nothing (no space, no time, no matter).

"The universe is eternal" means that space has always existed, time has always existed and matter has always existed.

These two claims are mutually exclusive.

 

[Gary]

Do you believe Santa Claus does not exist?

Quath: On page 27, it says "One who claims to be a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs." I don't entirely agree with this. It double uses the meaning of belief. For example, I am skeptical of Santa Claus. According to this I believe in my disbelief. And that doesn't fully make sense.

Gary: It makes complete sense IF you think about it. You are a skeptic of the existence of Santa Claus. Therefore, in actual fact, you are a believer that Santa Clause does not exist.

Test it again Quath. Are you a believer that Santa Claus does not exist? Yes or no?

Simple really.

 

[Gary]

Logical, 12-point progression

Quath: The 12 points on page 28 was already addressed by someone else on another thread so I will skip it.

Gary: : .... it is the whole point of the book.
"This book generally will follow this same logical, twelve-point progression..."

Anyway, we will get to it. I ignored Wertbag's response to the 12 points as his comments only showed that he had not even bothered to read the introduction which explained the 12 points like this:

Before we begin presenting this line of reasoning, please note five points:

First, we are not suggesting that the above points are true by definition. Most of these points are premises that need to be justified by evidence. For example, point 3 claims, “It is true that the theistic God exists.†That claim isn’t true just because we say so. It needs to be backed up by good evidence, by good reasons. We’ll give those good easons when we get to that point in the book.

Second, notice that we are starting at the point of complete skepticism. That is, we are starting with a person who says he doesn’t even believe in truth. We need to start there because if the prevailing view of the culture is rightâ€â€that there is no truthâ€â€then it can’t be true that a theistic God exists or that there is a true word from that God. However, if there is truth, and that truth can be known, then we can go on to investigate the truth of God’s existence and the other points that follow (e.g., miracles are possible; the New Testament is historically reliable; and so forth).

Third, if this line of reasoning is sound (and that’s a big “if†that this book will attempt to show), it necessarily disproves other religions where they differ from the Bible. (This sounds incredibly arrogant and presumptuous, but we’ll address that later.) This would not mean that all other religions are completely false or that they have no truth. Nearly all religions have some truth. We are simply saying that if the Bible is true, then any specific claim that contradicts the Bible must be false. For example, if the Bible is true, and it says that there is a God beyond the universe who created and sustains the universe (theism), then any claim that denies theism (e.g., atheism) must be false. Likewise, if the Bible is true, and it claims that Jesus rose from the dead, then the Qur’anic denial of that fact must be false. (By the way, the reverse would also be true. If the evidence showed that the Qur’an was true, then the Bible would be false wherever it contradicted the Qur’an.)

Fourth, we give evidence for Christianity because we ought to live our lives based on truth. Socrates once said that the unexamined life is not worth living. We believe that the unexamined faith is not worth believing. Furthermore, contrary to popular opinion, Christians are not supposed to “just have faith.†Christians are commanded to know what they believe and why they believe it. They are commanded to give answers to those who ask (1 Pet. 3:15), and to demolish arguments against the Christian faith (2 Cor. 10:4-5). Since God is reasonable (Isa. 1:18) and wants us to use our reason, Christians don’t get brownie points for being stupid. In fact, using reason is part of the greatest commandment which, according to Jesus, is to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind†(Matt. 22:37).

Finally, we are often asked, “If Christianity has so much evidence behind it, then why don’t more people believe it?†Our answer: Although we believe the evidence we’re about to present shows that the Bible is true beyond reasonable doubt, no amount of evidence can compel anyone to believe it. Belief requires assent not only of the mind but also of the will. While many non-Christians have honest intellectual questions, we have found that many more seem to have a volitional resistance to Christianity. In other words, it’s not that they don’t have evidence to believe, it’s that they don’t want to believe. The great atheist Friedrich Nietzsche exemplified this type of person. He wrote, “If one were to prove this God of the Christians to us, we should be even less able to lieve in himâ€Â; and “It is our preference that decides against Christianity, not arguments.†Obviously, Nietzsche’s disbelief was based on his will, not just his intellect.

 

[Gary]

Context

Quath: On page 31, it says "God has provided enough evidence in this life to convince anyone willing to believe, yet he also left some ambiguity so as not to compel the unwilling." I find the logic lacking. Either God is obvious or He is not. Either He proved Himself to the priests of Ba'al and Abraham and Israel and to Doubting Thomas (as Jesus) or He did not. Either way He is either observable or is not.

Gary: The context of the quote above is this:

One beauty of God’s creation is this: if you’re not willing to accept Christianity, then you’re free to reject it. This freedom to make choicesâ€â€even the freedom to reject truthâ€â€is what makes us moral creatures and enables each of us to choose our ultimate destiny. This really hits at the heart of why we exist at all, and why God might not be as overt in revealing himself to us as some would like. For if the Bible is true, then God has provided each of us with the opportunity to make an eternal choice to either accept him or reject him. And in order to ensure that our choice is truly free, he puts us in an environment that is filled with evidence of his existence, but without his direct presence a presence so powerful that it could overwhelm our freedom and thus negate our ability to reject him. In other words, God has provided enough evidence in this life to convince anyone willing to believe, yet he has also left some ambiguity so as not to compel the unwilling. In this way, God gives us the opportunity either to love him or to reject him without violating our freedom. In fact, the purpose of this life is to make that choice freely and without coercion. For love, by definition, must be freely given. It cannot be coerced. That’s why C. S. Lewis wrote, “the Irresistible and the Indisputable are the two weapons which the very nature of God’s scheme forbids Him to use. Merely to over-ride a human will (as His felt presence in any but the faintest and most mitigated degree would certainly do) would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo.â€Â

So the quote is about CHOICE given the evidence provided. This is not a test of God.... this is a test of YOUR choice.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"There’s a difference between proving a proposition and accepting a proposition. We might be able to prove Christianity is true beyond reasonable doubt, but only you can choose to accept it. Please consider this question to see if you are open to acceptance: If someone could provide reasonable answers to the most significant questions and objections you have about Christianityâ€â€reasonable to the point that Christianity seems true beyond a reasonable doubtâ€â€would you then become a Christian? Think about that for a moment. If your honest answer is no, then your resistance to Christianity is emotional or volitional, not merely intellectual. No amount of evidence will convince you because evidence is not what’s in your wayâ€â€you are. In the end, only you know if you are truly open to the evidence for Christianity."

:o

 

[Quath]

As I see it, "The univese had a beginning" means that there is a point at which there is nothing (no space, no time, no matter).

What is a "point" here? Mathmatically, a point is some coordinate like (x,y,z) or (x,y,z,t). However, if space and time do not exist, there can be no point.

"The universe is eternal" means that space has always existed, time has always existed and matter has always existed.

These two claims are mutually exclusive.

So eternal means "always existing." "Always" means "for all time." If the universe started when time started, then it both has a beginning and has existed for all time. Thus it begins and is eternal.

It makes complete sense IF you think about it. You are a skeptic of the existence of Santa Claus. Therefore, in actual fact, you are a believer that Santa Clause does not exist.

Test it again Quath. Are you a believer that Santa Claus does not exist? Yes or no?

Simple really.

Belief is more complicated because it brings in uncertainity. For example, I may feel 99.99% sure Santa Claus does not exist. I could be wrong, so I have uncertainity in my belief. That uncertainity is not really captured in the "true/false" world of logic.

It also is complicated because it seeks to double use the meaning of belief. For example, if you do not believe in Santa Claus, you could be lumped into the religion of Santa Claus nonbelief. However, that is not how our thought process work. Belief is more of accpetance of something than nonacceptance.

In general, disbelief is a stance someone takes when they find little to no evidence of something and they do not keep the idea as a personal belief. So it is rejection of a proposition. A belief is acceptance of a proposition. So I am not really arguing the logic as much as the application and use of the words.

So the quote is about CHOICE given the evidence provided. This is not a test of God.... this is a test of YOUR choice.

He is trying to draw a line between "direct evidence" and "indirect evidence." If all we have is indirect evidence, then it would be hard to tell one god from another. We would need something more direct. And this is where the Bible contradicts this philosophy. God was suppose to have given direct evidence to Adam & Eve, Noah, Moses, etc. Jesus was suppose to give direct evidence to people around Roman civilization. So God does not avoid direct evidence according to the Bible.

If someone could provide reasonable answers to the most significant questions and objections you have about Christianityâ€â€reasonable to the point that Christianity seems true beyond a reasonable doubtâ€â€would you then become a Christian?

I would say that I would become a believer, but I don't know if I would become Christian. I have a very hard time with God's morality as protrated by the OT and that would have to be resolved. But I am always open to the truth as best as I can figure it out.

If you wish I can go on to the next chapter or next section, or we can stay on this section.

Quath

 

[Relic]

Bump.

 

[McQuacks]

I'm definitely going to try this book, never heard of it before! Sounds very good. Can never get enough of these.
-McQ 8-)

 

[karie]

Me too! It sounds like a great book! Thanks for sharing!

~Karie :D