Case for a Creator

[shernajwine]

I just bought the book The Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel. I'm excited to get started reading it and I thought I would start a post about the book and update what I think about the book as I read it 

I'm posting this in Off Topic and not Debate and Discuss because my purpose in posting is not for debate but to create a thread more for discussion about the book (if you have read it already or are interested in reading it)

The back cover reads:

During his academic years, Lee Strobel became convinced that God was outmoded, a belief that colored his ensuing career as an award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune.  Science had made the idea of a Creator irrelevant--or so Strobel thought.

But today science is pointing in a different direction.  In recent years, a diverse and impressive body of research has increasingly supported the conclusion that the universe was intelligently designed.  At the same time, Darwinism has faltered in the face of concrete facts and hard reason.

Has science discovered God? At the very least, it's giving faith an immense boost as new findings emerge about the incredible complexity of our universe.  Join Strobel as he reexamines the theories that once led him away from God.  Through his compelling account, you'll encounter the mind-stretching discoveries from cosmology, cellular biology, DNA research, astronomy, physics, and human consciousness that present astonishing evidence in THE CASE FOR A CREATOR.

I have ordered a couple of other books that should be in the mail and here soon.

I am excited to share the things I learn from this dynamic author as I read the book!! Be back soon!! 

[shernajwine]

Ok, well I couldn't sleep so I decided to come on and give my impression of the first few chapters of the book.

I'm on chapter 3 so far and the first few chapters deal with a quick summary of Strobel's atheistic history. How he grew up in church and by nature was very inquisitive....his questions about God and the bible went unanswered and therefore his foundation for faith suffered. He was introduced to evolution in college and it solidified his belief that there was no God. He felt satisfied that science was able to answer his questions with cold hard facts and religion had given him nothing but mythology. He began to see Christianity "for the dinosaur it was"

His wife converted to Christianity during their marriage and when he saw a change in her character he began to become inquisitive about religion again. In the 3rd chapter he pays a visit to a very well accredited scientist Jonathan Wells, the author of Icons of Evolution.

The next several chapters in the book promise more interviews by many well respected and educated men of science who reveal shocking things about a theory that has rocked our culture to it's heels.

Strobel's comments regarding God, Christianity, Jesus, and religion echo the words posted by atheists or skeptics in this forum. I am intrigued to find out more from this former atheists point of view and what exactly impacted him the most, in his conversion to Christ!

[lvstephanie]

Sounds like a different book that I read about the transformation of an atheist physicist to an Anglican minister (at least I think it was a different book -- I'll share the title / author if I find it in the box of college books). I was reading it for a Science and Religion course I was taking in college. A lot of my own beliefs are based around that author's book...

It seems like there is a huge spectrum when it comes to belief in God and the creation of Earth. On the one hand, there are the religious that believe much more in the literal translation of the Bible. They believe that God actively the Creator, that God actively put together humans without the need for the species to evolve from lower animals. And that God created the world without the need for a "big bang" etc. On the other hand, there are atheists that believe there is no God whatsoever. That Earth was a mere offshoot from the continually expanding universe after the Big Bang. That humans are merely carbon constructs with no real purpose other than our own existence.

The book I read took a more centrist POV. Although Anglican's (and Catholics, for that matter) believe in the Bible, they do not hold it for its literal translation. Rather they believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. The Bible was still written by humans for humans and as such is fallible. However, it still tries to speak to us as humans, to inspire us to become more perfect, like God. Because of this idea, the scientific theories like evolution, Big Bang, etc. are still very plausible in this belief system. An inspired reading of Genesis suggests that God is the creator of all things, and that as such all things made through God's hands are good. It doesn't mean that it took God exactly seven days (even if they are "God's days"), nor does it make the theory of evolution anathema to the Bible. Rather it looks to the Bible as the answer to Why and allows science to answer the How. God wanted to make an intelligent species that was capable of love, and so when "making" the laws of science, set it up so that eventually the Earth and humans would form.

I'm also curious as to the POV that your book will take. Being that it sounds like an Atheist turned Christian, I wouldn't be too surprise that he is also more of a Centrist in that his belief in God doesn't prohibit his belief in science either. However, I could be wrong, especially since he sounds more like a journalistic scholar rather than a true scientist. As such, his understanding of science is only as good as how well people he's talked to can explain what they believe. Much like his unanswered questions about religion shook his belief in God, I fear that unanswered questions about the universe may shake his belief in science as well.

Keep us up-to-date with what your reading. I think it'd be interesting to listen to...

[shernajwine]

Although there are theistic evolutionists I think these people have accepted evolution because they are of the impression that to take the bible literally makes them look stupid. So they accept a theory that requires as much faith as faith in the bible and then are accepted by the world and are not included in attacks upon religion (because at least they used enough of their brain to accept evolution)

{when I speak of evolution here, I am speaking of the idea that we all come from a common ancestor, that is the premise of Darwinism....I'm not speaking merely of a biological change within a species over time}

But evolution eliminates the need for a God to exist at all. If life was capable of being produced through naturalistic processes, what is the purpose in believing in God? The bible says the invisible nature of God can be seen through the things that are seen (His creation) so that we are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)

I can't really speak for any theistic evolutionists because I don't personally know any ...(before I understood evolution, I thought the two ideas could co exist, now that I understand the implication....no) but I think theistic evolutionists have embraced evolution based on facts and held on to a belief in God based on fear. (Mind you these are my opinions based on statements I have read made by this group of people)

This is actually the third book written by Strobel, the first being The Case For Christ, and then The Case For Faith. I look forward to reading both of those but I chose The Case For A Creator because I think in order to accept faith or Christ you should have evidence for God!

Right now Dr. Wells is describing to Strobel the four "Icons" that influenced Strobel to become an atheist and the falsehoods and misleading information behind them. (Dr. Wells was a former atheist himself until he, as a scientist took off the evolution glasses and saw the facts leading to creation and intelligent design)

The four Icons that influenced Strobel to throw God in the trash:
The Stanley Miller experiment
Darwin's Tree of Life
Haekel's Embryos
The Archaeopteryx missing link

To be continued...........

[shernajwine]

The Miller Experiment:
Was conducted in an environment that did not correctly represent the atmospheric conditions of the primitive earth. If the experiment were to be conducted under correct atmospheric conditions you would not get amino acids (necessary for life to exist) but you would still get organic molecules. What are these promising organic molecules?? Formaldehyde and Cyanide. It's true that formaldehyde and cyanide can be turned into biological molecules....but it's a joke to think that they could give you the right substrate for the origin of life.....because what it produces is embalming fluid.
Conclusion Miller Experiment is junk.

Darwin's Tree of Life
Shows a tree with a common ancestor at the root and a branching out of more complex and diverse species. Darwin believed that future fossil discoveries would vindicate his theory but it hasn't happened. The Cambrian explosion uprooted Darwin's Tree and turned it upside down. The sudden appearance of complex creatures in the Cambrian explosion do more to disprove Darwin's theories than to solidify them.
Conclusion Darwin's Tree is junk.

Haeckel's Embryos
Haeckel was arrested for the fraudulent drawings that attempted to prove that similarities in the early stages of development of embryos of a fish, amphibian, reptile, bird, hog, calf, rabbit, and human pointed to a common ancestor. Surprisingly his drawings are still used but have been proven fraudulent. What's more he cherry picked his specimen representations that would best serve his purpose but still changed them to represent his presented theory. Darwin claimed that embryos are most similar in their early stages. Well Haeckel actually used midpoint development in his representations and called them "early stages"
Also discovered...human embryos do not have gills.
Conclusion Haeckel's Embryos are junk.

Now here Strobel asks Wells about the 98 to 99% sharing of DNA between humans and apes. Wells responds by saying that "if you assume that we are products of our genes, then you're saying that the dramatic differences between us and chimps are due to 2% of our genes. The problem is that the so called body building genes are in the 98%. The 2% of genes that are different are really rather trivial genes that have little to do with anatomy. So the similarity of the DNA is a problem for neo-Darwinism." The important point is that similarity by itself doesn't distinguish between design and Darwinism."

Archaeopteryrx
Strobel asks, "It is half-bird, half-reptile, right?" The answer is No. Wells says it is a bird with modern feathers.The interesting part is that when they go into the fossil record looking for reptiles that are more bird-like in their skeletal structure, they find them millions of years AFTER archaeopteryx. So we have archeaopteryx, which is absolute bird and yet the fossils that look most like the reptilian ancestors of birds occur tens of million of years later in the fossil record.
Conculsion missing link still missing.

For more Icons and the discovered falsehoods behind them read Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells

[shernajwine]

In chapter 4 Strobel is interviewing Stephen C. Meyer PHD who earned degrees in physics and geology and went on to receive his master's in the history and philosophy of science at Cambridge University in England. There he focused on the history of molecular biology, the  history of physics, and the evolutionary theory.

In the interview they discussed the philosophy of NOMA. Strobel asked for 6 examples of how Meyer believes science and faith point toward theism.

Meyer states (and I won't go into detail here because it's a lot but I will state his example and a brief description)
1.the Big Bang theory and its accompanying theoretical underpinning in general relativity. Meyer states these two theories now point to a definite beginning of the universe. Together, the Big Bang and general relativity provide a scientific description of what Christians call creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing).
2. anthropic fine-tuning....this means the fundamental laws and parameters of physics have precise numerical values that could have been otherwise. All of these laws and constants conspire in a mathematically incredible way to make life in the universe possible.
3.origin of life and the origin of information necessary to bring life into existence. Life requires information, which is stored in DNA and protein molecules. "We're not inferring design just because the naturalistic evolutionary theories all fail to explain information.  We infer design because all those theories fail and we know of another causal entity that is capable of producing information, namely intelligence."
4.design in molecular machines that defy explanation by Darwinian natural selection.
He mentions Michael Behe and "irreducible complexity"
5.the Cambrian explosion. Darwin said nature takes no sudden leaps, yet here is a gigantic leap. The Cambrian explosion provides a negative case against Darwinism and a compelling positive argument for design.
6.human consciousness. we can self-reflect, we have the capacity for representational art, language, creativity. Science cannot account for this by mere interaction of physical matter in the brain. Theism provides the best explanation.

There is much much more to this particular interview and much more detail given in each of Meyers 6 examples that I cannot put everything in this post I would like to.

[shernajwine]

Chapter 5 is an interview with William Lane Craig PHD THD with many publications and including articles on cosmological issues that have appeared in a wide range of scientific and philosophical journals.

Craig begins the interview by discussing the "kalam cosmological argument"
(there is also a great deal of detail here that I cannot translate into this post)
The argument has three steps:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist,
Therefore the universe has a cause.

1. whatever begins to exist has a cause
The first premise is obvious once you understand the concept of absolute nothingness. The idea that things can come into existence uncaused out of nothing is worse than magic. At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, there is a magician and a hat!. In atheism, the universe pops into being out of nothing, with no explanation.
This premise is a principle that is continually verified by science.

2.The universe began to exist.
There are two ways to establish this conclusion. Mathematically and philosophically.
(this part is hard to break down because he gives a lengthy and detailed example involving transfinite arithmetic. But the idea is that mathematicians can deal with infinite quantities and infinite numbers in the conceptual realm. They are forbidden from doing subtraction and division in transfinite arithmetic, because this would lead to contradictions.)
Strobel mentions the idea that if the universe can't be infinite then why is God an exception.
Basically his answer is God created time and space, God himself is timeless and eternal.

3.Therefore the universe has a cause
Ok so here Strobel basically says....'alright you have a lot of good evidence here but what the atheists who say if everything needs a cause, how did God become exempt?
Craig answers stating that the first premise of the kalam argument is not that everything has a cause but that whatever begins to exist has a cause. He makes another good point in pointing out that atheists maintain that the universe doesn't need a cause because it's eternal, yet God can't be timeless and uncaused.

Alright, I am on the 6th chapter and I have to say that I am incredibly impressed.  I thought when ordering the book I was going to get an "impression" of Lee Stroble's interviews and therefore biased information on his own beliefs.  But he started out asking these questions from an atheistic platform and was completely unrelenting in his questioning of these learned men.

He was truly a skeptic and would not allow soft answers and circular reasoning. There is so much information contained in the few chapters I have summarized here so I highly recommend that if any of what I have written has sparked your interest, GO BUY THE BOOK!.

I'm not seeing any responses to this post other than the one.....but I will continue to post and hope that this topic sparks interest in people to stop walking around with blinders. No matter what spectrum of belief you are on...don't believe it blindly!

To be continued...

 

[Annella]

I've mentioned Strobel's works in another thread.  You put it in depth.......thank you.

[rwdeese]

Good Job!

[shernajwine]

Thanks guys. It's nice to know I'm not posting in vain 

[kenrachel1993]

sounds like a good book , i might read it

[queenofnines]

Sherna --

I could be wrong when I say this, but I get the impression that your sudden zest for proving to yourself that god is real is due to recent doubt you may have experienced in regards to your faith.  No offense, but most Christians don't have to read books to prove to themselves that there's a god; they believe, and that's all there is to it.

For me personally, I didn't spend much time reading books that attempted to prove Christ nor watch videos proclaiming "how stupid evolution is" when I was a Christian (except when I was trying to witness).  I didn't need to convince myself that there were "good" arguments for god because it simply felt like he was real.  As an atheist I can now see that going to church is a KEY COMPONENT of maintaining a belief in god...but not for the reason you think.  It's a key component because the delusions are being reinforced to you on a weekly basis.

The second key component to maintaining a belief in god is to have "god glasses" firmly glued to your head.  This means when you're outside church in your everyday life, you can TRAIN YOURSELF to see "god" in pretty much anything.  If something mundane but good happens, it's a "blessing".  When something sh*tty happens, it's a "test".  Because you've TRICKED YOURSELF into seeing normal life through shades of "god", this also significantly reinforces the belief.  Occasionally some really weird coincidences will happen, but it never occurs to you that these same "blessings", "tests", and "coincidences" happen to atheists, too!

Did you read my thread on how the Christian god is logically impossible?  Facts such as those are what woke me up to the Christian dreamland I had been living in.  From then on, I could no longer see "god" in my everyday life because I realized he was never there to begin with.

[jcribb16]

Thanks guys. It's nice to know I'm not posting in vain 

  You keep up the good posts.  It's interesting reading the debating posts in these threads.  They get deep.  I did get involved for awhile, but got really sick with asthma/bronchitis and have been out of whack for awhile with tests and meds.  But I have been keeping up with the threads.  Hopefully I'll get back involved soon enough.  You have my backing as a Christian! 

[Annella]

Wonderful post shernajwine!!   Your getting the answers your seeking.  Don't worry about those who try to turn you from what you are seeking.  Listen to your heart, and that thirst you are feeling for the right way.  The glorious feeling you have during worship and praise.  The way your spirit quickens when they read the Word before the preacher brings it forth.  That is what is alive and true.  God is pulling you to Him. 

The Bible even tells us in Psalms 53:1 and other places:   The fool says in their heart, there is no God. 

If they can deceive themselves that there is no God, then there must be no heaven, hell, eternity.  Here's something I say to the atheist.  If their right, and I'm wrong (not), then after this life, nothing happens, and neither of us have lost anything....but....if their wrong, and I'm right that the Bible is true (yes), then I've gained heaven, and they have nothing to look forward to except hell.  Either way, I lose nothing, but they can lose everything....for eternity.

That, is what I call a fool's bet. 

For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:  And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.  Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.  Job 19:25-27

[shernajwine]

I could be wrong when I say this, but I get the impression that your sudden zest for proving to yourself that god is real is due to recent doubt you may have experienced in regards to your faith

You are right and wrong also. When I came into the forum I was assaulted by information about evolution that I never knew and attitudes about God I hadn't ever seen. When I was confronted about posts I made in regards to my faith, I didn't always have an answer based on anything other than how I "felt" about it.  Well I took yours and others advice and began to search for answers. I visited the links you posted, that led me to other links and more information and articles and essays and books and quotes and all sorts of information. I thought....well some of this makes sense but I'm not going to jump to atheism based just on what atheists say. I would still be making a choice in ignorance because I didn't even know about my own side of the argument!!

So I began to search for evidence that God did exist. Not faith based evidence but scientific evidence because it seems to atheists that science is what proves God doesn't exist. Evolution gives God walking papers and gives people willing to accept there is no God...intellectual fulfillment. Right??

Well I didn't completely understand evolution, so I began researching it from all angles. So my sudden zest isn't to prove God is real due to recent doubt, but to put knowledge behind my faith so that there is no room for doubt to creep in.

I did read your thread about your logical reasons God doesn't exist....and I could debate each point with sound logical reasoning as to why he does and do it based on science that you believe Christianity ignores in favor of the bible.

The posts I read in this forum convinced me that blind faith is "retarded" faith. Faith is necessary for belief in God because we cannot physically see Him and we have to trust Him despite the fact He is not walking around my house in the flesh telling me He is real and giving me advice. However, He has given evidences of His existence in this universe and science IS pointing towards His existence. For those who will openly view the evidence presented, they cannot logically argue against many facts presented in favor of theism.  But if you choose to only view evidence from an atheistic perspective (which conveniently leaves out contradictions based in fact from the opposition) well then your doing exactly what you accuse christians of doing.....you're being closed minded.

You can claim to have searched out many things in trying to find proof.  But I will be honest with you, and I know that I don't know you personally so I'm not saying this is how it is...but from my perception, it seems as though your christian walk was based in blind faith and therefore it was easy for doubt to be planted and once presented with what seemed to be profound evidence that you were wrong you made a decision to go with that evidence.  Well, now you feel certain you are right and view any contrary evidence with arrogant disdain.

You are no longer open to truth because you feel you have already obtained it.

Well, in my digging through atheistic and evolutionist and scientific, and creationist and theological and philosophical research, I have found that an amazing an immense universe that sustains life in such a fragile balance by such precise fine-tuning; cries out design.  With more and more recent breakthrough scientific discoveries, more and more atheist and agnostic scientists are finding themselves in such awe, they can no longer ignore the evidence and their own science pushes them to believe in the truth. God did it.