FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Topic started by: shernajwine on July 27, 2010, 07:27:13 pm
-
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 :D
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!! ;D
-
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!
-
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...
-
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...........
-
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
-
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.
-
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...
;D :peace: :heart:
-
I've mentioned Strobel's works in another thread. You put it in depth.......thank you. :wave:
-
Good Job!
-
Thanks guys. It's nice to know I'm not posting in vain :)
-
sounds like a good book , i might read it
-
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.
-
Thanks guys. It's nice to know I'm not posting in vain :)
:cat: 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! :)
-
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
-
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.
-
Sounds like a great book. I've been wanting to read Strobel's The Case for Christ.
-
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
This hope that I have, the world didn't give it to me
This joy that I have, the world didn't give it to me
This love that I have, the world didn't give it to me
This Word that I have, the world didn't give it to me
This God that I have, the world didn't give Him to me
The world didn't give it and the world can't take it away
I am more than just confidant in the existence of God. I am in love with Him. I have never felt so in love with Him than I am now. Now that I know and am beginning to understand how AMAZING a God He is that He could create such a vast and beautiful universe in which He lovingly created for me. My feet are planted in the Word and I won't be moved by the thrashing and violent storm of deception that attempts to uproot me.
-
Chapter 6
It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in numbers, has been rather carefully thought out...The seemingly miraculous concurrence of the numerical values must remain the most compelling evidence for cosmic design. Physicist Paul Davies
Strobel starts out this chapter talking about a man named Patrick Glynn who has a background similar to Strobel's. He was born into a religious family and while earning his doctorate at Harvard he became a confirmed atheist. His wife's belief in christianity spurred him to begin investigating evidence for a creator. He says in The Making and Unmaking of an Atheist:
Gradually, I realized that in the twenty years since I opted for philosophical atheism, a vast, systematic literature had emerged that not only cast a deep doubt on, but also from any reasonable persepective, effectively refuted my atheistic outlook...Today, it seems to me, there is no good reason for an intelligent person to embrace the illusion of atheism or agnosticism, to make the same intellectual mistakes I made.
In this chapter Strobel interviews Robin Collins PHD, who has earned degrees in physics and mathematics at WSU and entered a doctoral program in physics at the University of Texas in Austin.
He talks about the universes fine tuning which referrs to the extraordinary balanceing of the fundamental laws and paramenters of physics and the initial conditions of the universe. He speaks about the incredible and overwhelming odds for our fragile balance on the razors edge of life. One tiny fraction in one direction or the other and life is not possible....the odds are SO overwhelming that even atheistic scientists are completely amazed and reluctantly use the word "miracle" but with a reminder that it doesn't conclude design. ::)
In the interview Collins says...."Let's say you were way out in space and were going to throw a dart at random toward the Earth. It would be like successfully hitting a bull's eye that's one trillionth of a trillionth of an inch in diameter. That's less than the size of one solitary atom." These are the odds at which we have won the "living lottery" here on earth!
He mentions that skeptics say, if the universe were not fine-tuned for life, then human beings wouldn't be around to observe it. So therefore it requires no explanation....
Hmmmmm sounds pretty weak to me.
Now Collins also mentions that spiritual skeptics try and use a metaphysical escape hatch for this fine-tuning and cosmological contant issue which so strongly points to a creator. The escape hatch is to presume that multiple universes exist, therefore lowering the odds and making it seem less of a miracle that we so happen to be lucky enough to exist. However, the multi-verse theory is only a theory and there is NO evidence to suggest that they exist and there IS no way of proving it.
Lot's of good information in this chapter. And once again Strobel is not wary of aggressively questioning his interview subjects. He wants answers because he wants truth!
-
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
This hope that I have, the world didn't give it to me
This joy that I have, the world didn't give it to me
This love that I have, the world didn't give it to me
This Word that I have, the world didn't give it to me
This God that I have, the world didn't give Him to me
The world didn't give it and the world can't take it away
I am more than just confidant in the existence of God. I am in love with Him. I have never felt so in love with Him than I am now. Now that I know and am beginning to understand how AMAZING a God He is that He could create
Such a vast and beautiful universe in which He lovingly created for me. My feet are planted in the Word and I won't be moved by the thrashing and violent storm of deception that attempts to uproot me.
Shernajwine, you made me cry tears of joy. Our love for Him is eternal. He is real and alive forever more!
-
Ok, for anyone reading this thread with interest, this book has 11 chapters. I'm actually further along reading than what I have posted so far but my son had surgery so I haven't been able to stay online as much. I have another book after this one that I'm going to read called Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds by Phillip E. Johnson.
Let me know if after this book is summarized here if you would like me to start another thread in the same form, for the next book. :thumbsup:
-
Chapter 7
This chapter has a subtle yet very impactful message.
In this chapter Strobel is interviewing Guillermo Gonzalez PHD who graduated summa *bleep* laude with degrees in astronomy and physics from the University of Arizona and later earned his master's degree and doctorate in astronomy from the University of Washington at Seattle. And Jay Wesely Richards PHD who holds three advanced degrees in philosophy and theology, including a doctorate from Princeton Theological Seminary. Together they authored a book called The Privileged Planet.
This chapter is longer than the previous ones and they get into some pretty deep and meaty details that I won't be able to do justice to within a mere summary.
The chapter starts out making a statement that has been a common belief among astrologists and other areas of science but is being unraveled and found false. The statement is that, there is nothing special about earth, nothing unique about our sun and nothing out of the ordinary about our galaxy.....earth is "a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark"-Carl Sagan
This belief is based on the Principle of Mediocrity or the Copernican Principle. Copernicus's discovery that the sun didn't revolve around the earth but the earth revolved around the sun seems to have demoted humankind from a privileged space in the universe.
Now in the next few pages these two learned men go through a brief history that is detailed but explain how The Copernican system, far from demoting man, destroyed Aristotle's vision of the earth as a kind of cosmic sink, and if it did anything, it elevated humanity. (You would have to read the entire passage to get entire jist of that and how they explain it)
But to summarize the chapter as a whole Gonzalez and Richards explain with logical reasoning how life is nearly impossible if not entirely possible anywhere else in the universe. Based on what we know about the laws of physics and biological structures, we can determine that earth is perfectly situated to sustain life and have biological systems flourish. Everything about our planet is unique to supporting life.
Strobel mentioned how science fiction speculates about extra-terrestrial life that's built in a radically different form-for instance creatures based on silicon instead of carbon.
Gonzalez says it won't work. He insists "Chemistry is one of the better understood areas of science. We know that you just can't get certain atoms to stick together in sufficient number and complexity to give you large molecules like carbon can. Silicon falls far short of carbon."
They discuss the "safe zone" in which our planet revolves around the sun....a zone is that narrow and how we are perfectly positioned. How our distance from the sun, the moon and its size and distance, the surrounding planets that protect us from asteroids, the circular orbit.....all of this creates a space optimal for life to flourish. There is two pages devoted to describing how incredible the sun is and how it is unique.....it is just the right mass, emits just the right colors a balance of red and blue, it's metal rich and has a higher abundance of heavy elements compared to other stars of its age in this region of the galaxy. Its metallicity may be near the golden mean for building Earth size habitable terrestrial planets.
It talks about plate tectonics which is unique to earth and how it is necessary to support life.
Then they talk about how we are placed optimally to discover the universe. "Over and over again, the extraordinary conditions that create a hospitable environment on Earth also happen to make our planet strangely well-suited for viewing, analyzing and understanding the universe."
Gonzalez concludes " the universe was designed for observers living in places where they can make scientific discoveries.."
Richards adds "Christians have always believed that God testifies to his existence through the book of nature and the book of Scripture. In the nineteenth century, science effectively closed the book of nature. But now, new scientific discoveries are reopening it."
-
I must dive back into Strobel's writings again. It's been a while, and your postings have made me want to go through it again. Need to invest in the whole set of DVD's and books. Our church has them in the library for anyone to check out, but I want my own set.
Keep posting, it's great. :thumbsup:
-
Chapter 7
This chapter has a subtle yet very impactful message
This sounds like it is right up my alley. What is the name of the book please. Thanks
:peace:
-
Lee Strobel wrote 4 books so far:
A Case For a Creator (this is the one shernajwine is posting on)
A Case For Christ
A Case For Faith
A Case For the Real Jesus (have not read this one yet).
There are also DVD's that coincide with these books.
-
I actually have a book coming in the mail that is another one by Lee Strobel called Inside the Mind of the Unchurched Harry and Mary.
It is a book that I think will help me personally as I am confronted by non believers and will help me better understand their reasoning. I am excited to read it. I will probably have several more books on the way but I won't try to put them all in the forum lol that would be overload!!
-
This sounds like it is right up my alley. What is the name of the book please. Thanks
As Annella stated, the book I am summarizing on in this thread is Case for a Creator; but the people interviewed in the chapter 7 of this book authored a book called The Privileged Planet, which would go into more details than are stated in the interview. So if this particular issue talked about in chapter 7 interests you, I would recommend the book the speakers wrote. :)
-
I actually have a book coming in the mail that is another one by Lee Strobel called Inside the Mind of the Unchurched Harry and Mary.
It is a book that I think will help me personally as I am confronted by non believers and will help me better understand their reasoning. I am excited to read it. I will probably have several more books on the way but I won't try to put them all in the forum lol that would be overload!!
I need to review his writings and what he has out there now. Inside the Mind of the Unchurched sounds like something I'd like to read also. I travel a lot and would like to take some of his books along with.
-
Chapter 8
This chapter is in interview with Michael Behe PHD who received a degree in chemistry with honors from Drexel University and a doctorate in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania. He is the author of the book "Darwin's Black Box"
The interview starts off with Behe explaining the title of his book."black box" is a term scientists use when describing a system or machine that they find interesting but they don't know how it works. He uses a computer as an example of being a black box for most people. We use it, we type on the keyboard we process documents but most of us have no clue how a computer actually works. To Darwin, the cell, was a black box.
Behe's concept of irreducible complexity is compared to a mouse trap. The comparison says that the particular mouse trap in this example cannot function without all it's parts and neither can the cell. So Behe's premise is that "evolution can't produce an irreducibly complex biological machine suddenly, all at once, because it's much too complicated. The odds against that would be prohibitive. And you can't produce it directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor system would be missing a part and consequently couldn't function. There would be no reason for it to exist. And natural selection chooses systems that are already working"
For those interested here is a youtube video I found some time ago that gives you detailed information on what Behe is talking about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3-6gFBpXdM
Now as always anytime a legitimate argument is presented in favor of creation, evolutionists will try and debunk it with outrageous claims. Strobel brings up arguments from the evolutionists side to disprove the irreducible complexity concept. Behe addresses them all with confidence and easy to understand illustrations of his points.
There are a number of youtube videos featuring Behe defending his concept and his book with sound logic and showing the evolutionists weak arguments for the ridiculous over reaching that they are.
Behe says, "Scientists propose hypotheses all the time. No big deal. But if I say, 'I don't think natural selection is the driving force for the development of life; I think it was intelligent design,' people don't just disagree; many of them jump up and down and get red in the face. When you talk to them about it, invariably they're not excited because they disagree with the science; it's because they see the extra-scientific implications of intelligent design and they don't like where it's leading."
-
Chapter 9
Strobel goes back to interview Stephen C. Meyer again. This time he wants to discuss DNA.
Meyer has written extensively on the implications of the information in DNA and Strobel wants to find out if there any naturalistic processes that can account for the appearance of biological data in the earliest cells.
Meyer likens the DNA to a library. DNA is encoded with chemical characters A,G,C,and T. Different arrangement of characters yields different sequences of amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. So comparing the DNA to a library he says "The organism accesses the information that it needs from DNA so it can build some of its critical components."
So the idea of this chapter is Meyer is describing the fact that DNA is full of information. Now if you can't explain where the information comes from, you haven't explained life, because it's the information that makes the molecules into something that actually functions.
Nowhere in our world do we find information that wasn't the result of intelligence. Books, computers, mathematical equations...anything that has information in it was produced by intelligence. Yet evolutionists would have you believe that the incredible amount of information and the incredibly complex biological data inside of every single cell was produced by natural processes.
He uses the example of hiking on a mountain and coming across some rocks spelling out "Welcome Stephen", now these rocks are clearly relaying information. Do we suppose that the wind knocked around the rocks until they accidentally spelled out something that is able to be related through information processing? Well, it's possible extremely improbable but it would be considered a miracle of a sort because the chances of the wind producing translatable information ...well the odds are outrageous! So what about his brother who was hiking in front of him...could he have placed the rocks in such a manner that would spell out a greeting for the one behind him?? Well, to an evolutionist he would say....intelligence couldn't possibly have formed those rocks in that pattern. (you see where this example is going ;) )
Then they discuss the prebiotic soup of early earth. Darwin speculated that life may have originated when a protein compound was chemically formed...in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc. present.
Meyer says, there is no evidence that this "soup" ever existed. He said there would have been a lot of nitrogen in this soup because it would have been rich in amino acids and amino acids are nitrogenous. So in examining the earliest sediments of earth they should find large deposits of nitrogen rich minerals......never been found.
Interestingly enough Meyer states in the next section entitled "Random Chance" ...that "Virtually all origin-of-life experts have utterly rejected that approach"
Yet it is still alive at the popular level. Meyer says that the first molecule would have had to have a certain level of protein folding in order to perform a function....the odds of a molecule forming by chance in the exact way it needs to to be functional is 1 chance in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000." And that would be only ONE protein molecule--a minimally complex cell would need between three hundred and five hundred protein molecules!!!! Plus, all of this would have to be accomplished in a mere 100 million years, which is the approximate window of time between the earth cooling and the first micro fossils we've found." "To suggest chance against those odds is really to invoke a naturalistic miracle. It's a confession of ignorance. It's another way of saying 'We don't know' ".
There is a lot more in this chapter that is mind boggling in regards to the awesome complexity in DNA and Meyers effectively debunks all evolutionist arguments.
Ok, I just found a series on youtube that kind of does what I'm doing here in summarizing this book. Here is a portion of that series dealing with this particular chapter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CamNoA6Cfjc&feature=related
-
Chapter 9
Strobel goes back to interview Stephen C. Meyer again. This time he wants to discuss DNA.
It is difficult for me to find the discipline and energy to NOT comment/add on all this. I spend endless hours discussing these exact topics and dozens of others.
It seems completely illogical to say that a few atoms came together to form the exact molecules/particles that allowed for "life" to begin not as to say it is impossible though. Too many permutations: even with millions/billions of years for one permutation to eventually have the necessary components/qualities that would allow for evolving of it aside from all the other permutations happening with other atoms/particles/molecules. How about all the inexplicable coincidences just in our galaxy let alone all the other billions.
I personally believe evolution is true simply because I know I have evolved from my youth into a far more complex being: mentally, physically, emotionally etc. not to mention at length- from ancient egyptians or early pigmys/myans etc. To believe it all happened from a few atoms is just too much for any intelligent, humble, focused, driven, curious human to accept as truth. The only people I see believing either possibility and only that possibility are usually closed minded, fearful, angry, confused, unaware and over-privileged sad excuse for humans who are usually the worst offenders for not choosing to seek out what they believe is true but to simply randomly choose and defend those beliefs at all costs and selfishly without the whole of other possibilities in mind. Seems sad and pitiful to me to live an entire life like that. Maybe a few years early on before our minds really have lived and expanded enough to really comprehend multi-faceted conversations such as these and doing so without extreme emotion.
It seems logical that both exist to some extent: that is a supreme being/beings either flat out created us or guided our evolution into what we know today: humans/humanoids/homosapiens - and that we have evolved and will keep evolving (or at least I hope because it seems we have tipped and now are devolving as a whole >< ) into a more complex, compassionate, aware etc etc beings.
Some days I seriously doubt a higher power exists because of the significant disappointment they would have in us since day 1 and still allow for us to exist here; but then again we are only here for a measly 100 years or so and in the grand of eternity this time here isn't even measurable it is so short, so what may seem big and extreme to us now may one day be only but a spec in our journey as energy/spirits etc. and is completely relative to what it is that we know only here with what is in front of us.
With all the energy we expend on all of this lets not forget to actually get out there and make this ball of dirt we live on a little better each day. We must remember those that came before us put some serious foot to *bleep* to allow for us to have the freedom to sit around lazily discussing these things and not having to worry of tanks rolling down the streets or our government being overthrown or some extreme such as those. Any person that can read, focus and understand on all of this has a serious advantage over most others as we can handle living exceedingly complex lives and implement far-reaching change. So I'll consider this a discussion/contribution thread for the advancement of life for those that choose to do so and my contribution will be very, very easy. Go rent a few movies or the more challenging way get the books for 1. Blue Gold 2. Earth 2100 3. The Jensen Project 4. The Next Industrial Revolution 5. The Secret 6. What the #*$&% Do We know (probably the best film of all time). All of those combine 1 very simple and easy point: be aware of how your decisions effect/affect yourself and others. Quite simple really.
So in short I believe that if I put my 2 cents in it will show support for those of you who choose to or want to get into the infinite possibilities such as these and show you too feel that it is about discussing the possibilities and not just believing in one. It shows you keep an open mind to existing and new information. Who knows what future information/technology/study will reveal to us.
Thanks for making this thread as I will read at least 1 of the books mentioned here since I enjoy the mental stimulation and faith/hope that somewhere else people are discussing these same subjects. After seeing all the hate, anger, confusion, human trafficking, drug abuse, physical-mental-emotional abuse, greed, fear etc it is nice to know there are a few who have chosen to allow themselves to evolve into arguably better life forms. It does set a great example and gives strength to others often times without us even knowing it.
:peace:
-
@ shernajwine
you go girl :) im glad that you finally made a choice on what you believe in and standing up for your beliefs...
dont let anyone fool you but yourself
just embrace on what they have to say.
because ignorance is a bliss and that can led to be superior to one another.
and we dont want that do we?
-
Thank you for sharing.
-
Wow! Interesting to read, thanks for sharing about the book....I had heard of it and it had sounded good-the relationship between science and faith is very interesting and important-check out the "Biologos Foundation" for some interesting thoughts on this relationship...keep reading and exploring!!! :)
-
@ shernajwine
you go girl :) im glad that you finally made a choice on what you believe in and standing up for your beliefs...
dont let anyone fool you but yourself
just embrace on what they have to say.
because ignorance is a bliss and that can led to be superior to one another.
and we dont want that do we?
LOL
-
He talks about the universes fine tuning which referrs to the extraordinary balanceing of the fundamental laws and paramenters of physics and the initial conditions of the universe. He speaks about the incredible and overwhelming odds for our fragile balance on the razors edge of life. One tiny fraction in one direction or the other and life is not possible....
He mentions that skeptics say, if the universe were not fine-tuned for life, then human beings wouldn't be around to observe it. So therefore it requires no explanation....
Bleh, I don't know why I bother spending my time responding to stuff like this. You obviously want to be kept hostage by the idea of god...if god wasn't a deep psychological need of yours, you'd be able to see the very clear arguments against him and understand how you've been misled.
Life WOULD have been possible had conditions of the universe been altered; life would have just been different. And yes, the anthropic principle stands just fine.
Our world in particular is NOT ideal for life: we have oxygen which we require to breathe, but also slowly POISONS US; a planet that is not invincible to deadly asteroids; a very small percentage of good drinking water; a large portion of lands that are INFERTILE, causing millions of starving people; etc.
The universe is also not "fine-tuned" for us indefinitely; scientists have known for DECADES that we're doomed (that is, if we don't kill ourselves first). There is going to be a heat death or crunch one day, and then NO LIFE WHATSOEVER will exist at that point.
-
But to summarize the chapter as a whole Gonzalez and Richards explain with logical reasoning how life is nearly impossible if not entirely possible anywhere else in the universe.
I assume you made a typo here with the word possible. In any event, this kind of statement is clear evidence of how you can know you're being decieved by reading these books.
Why are you being deceived? Because to say that life elsewhere in the universe is "nearly impossible, if not entirely" is the most IGNORANT thing I've read this week.
Anyone with a basic knowledge of science knows that there are TRILLIONS UPON TRILLIONS of galaxies, solar systems, planets, stars, etc. It would be nearly impossible, if not entirely (to steal the authors' stupid line) for there NOT to be some form of life elsewhere in the universe. The reason why we haven't found beings comparable to humans yet is because space is measured in millions of light years; the closest intelligent alien life is beyond our technological capabilities right now. Hello, we only just walked on the moon in 1969.
-
It seems logical that both exist to some extent: that is a supreme being/beings either flat out created us or guided our evolution into what we know today: humans/humanoids/homosapiens - and that we have evolved and will keep evolving (or at least I hope because it seems we have tipped and now are devolving as a whole >< ) into a more complex, compassionate, aware etc etc beings.
Why would a god capable of creating the vast cosmos and laws within it need to use evolution?? I'm just sayin'.
-
Why would a god capable of creating the vast cosmos and laws within it need to use evolution?? I'm just sayin'.
This is a discussion thread not a debate thread . The whole of my post is to show support for ideas and possibilities not beliefs. To be open minded and to speculate for the interest of discussion and freedom and the enjoyment of learning in a non-threatening positive way is a big part of these topics. Not to come in and start picking apart a lot of what is being said. We actually should stop posting and allow the original thread makers continue with their own direction.
In no way does your comment contribute at all. We cannot effectively ask questions such as "Why would a god capable of creating the vast cosmos and laws within it need to use evolution." Your question as it stands has no answer except maybe that it would allow for us to move forward and grow emotionally, intellectually and physically etc and maybe a little nudge every now and then could be beneficial and I seriously doubt we will be able to answer it because within it we would need to question a creator(god) which I am confident he/she/they would rather us not do if in fact a creator(s) exists. If you don't have the intellectual capacity or discipline to contribute effectively I am confident everyone would rather your not comment at all.
Please feel free not to retort. Thanks
:peace:
-
Well queen, I could only post a limited amount of information from the book so you're replying in ignorance because you don't have all the information presented from the particular chapter and all the evidence that the interviewees discuss for their position. This is why I stated at the first post that I was not intending this as a debate topic. If you are actually INTERESTED in reading something other than atheistic and evolutionary materials and are willing to openly research the scientific evidence that points to a creator than this a good book to read. There are many other information sources out there.
This isn't the only source of material out there and I think I'm going to listen to someone who understands their field of study and spent years studying to receive in a doctorate.
And also the nearly impossible if not entirely was not the author's exact words, it was my summarized statement of the overall view.
Anyhow point being you cannot effectively argue something you don't understand, so either go read the book The Privileged Planet, or read The Case for a Creator and then you decide whether it's logical or not. After all being intellectually honest, is not the act of refusing to view all evidence before making a logical conclusion.
And I think you made a very important statement earlier.....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.
Well, there you have it. Maybe you should have read books and watched videos but instead you let an atheist make you feel stupid for your beliefs and you got bombarded with information to support an atheistic perspective.....therefore your faith in God was not rooted in knowledge and you were easily deceived. An atheist once tried to make me look stupid and I decided to do an honest search for answers ;)
2 Peter 1:5
And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;....
There is a list of scientists on another thread (and it certainly isn't by any means every single one) that believe in Creation. Many scientists (and several are mentioned and quoted in this particular book) have turned from atheism in favor of God...and not just any God but the God of Christianity because, try though they might they could not turn a blind eye to the evidence glaring them in the face any longer and many of them true to the purpose of science, let the evidence lead them to truth....even if that truth was uncomfortable.
I don't have a psychological need for God, I have a spiritual need for Him....and because I have a unique ability, being a human being, to reflect on the information I have come across...I can make a free will choice based on ALL evidence.
I read the God Delusion, I read Losing Faith in Faith by Dan Barker (a former christian turned atheist) and the many other video links and articles you have posted here that have led me to other sites and information. So I think I can say...even though I haven't read every single word from every single atheist or christian ever written...that I have a good basic foundation of information on both spectrums and I'm sorry but, I find that, what I once thought you said that made sense....doesn't anymore. I am more sure of the truth than I ever have been.
You can call me ignorant, delusional, psychotic, unintelligent, closed minded, stupid, unrealistic....aaaaaaanything you want. I'm beginning to understand atheist arrogance because suddenly I find myself laughing at these implications on my intelligence. ;D
-
Chapter 10
This chapter delves into the enigma of the mind. Something that evolution has never...cannot presently...and will never be able to explain.
The assertion of this chapter is that people are both body and spirit with a consciousness that acts outside the physical matter of the brain. This section also goes into details that I can't do justice to and I'm sitting here trying to fathom how I can put this into a short post and have it make sense lol. Well here goes...
Strobel interviews J.P. Moreland PHD. Moreland's science training came at the University of Missouri, where he received a degree in chemistry. He then earned a master's degree in theology at Dallas Theological Seminary and a doctorate in philosophy at the University of Southern California.
He describes consciousness as, what you are aware of when you introspect. When you pay attention to what's going on inside of you, that's consciousness.
Strobels asks, what if consciousness didn't exist?
Moreland's example: apples would still be red, but there would be no awareness of red or any sensations of red.
Moreland discusses physicalism, he says "if physicalism is true, then consciousness doesn't really exist, because there would be no such thing a sconscious states that must be described from a first-person point of view."
"also there would be no free will. That's because matter is completely governed by the laws of nature. Take any physical object, for instance, a cloud...it's just a material object, and it's movement is completely govered by the laws of air pressure, wind movement, and the life. So if I'm a material object, all of the things I do are fixed by my environment, my genetics, and so forth. That would mean I'm not really free to make choices."
His third reason for physicalism not being true deals with near death experiences or disembodied intermediate states.
Stroble asks flat out if Moreland thinks near death experiences are true.
"We have to be careful with the data and not overstate things, but I do think they provide at least a minimalist case for consciousness surviving death.
He mentions that consciousness is inner and private to the individual. A scientist could know more about what's happening in my brain that I do, but he couldn't know more about what's happening in my mind that I do. He has to ask me.
Later he says Darwinian evolution will never be able to explain the origin of consciousness. Perhaps Darwinists can explain how consciousness was shaped in a certain way over time, because the behavior that consciousness caused had survival value. But it can't explain the origin of consciousness, because it can't explain how you can get something from nothing....In Darwin's notebooks, he said if there was anything his theory can't explain, then there would have to be another explanation...Well he can't explain the origin of mind.
A soul is what we are, it is our character....Moreland gives an example of how he has never seen his wife. His wife is invisible. His wife has thoughts, a personality, likes and dislikes, feelings, beliefs, desires. If she were to be taken apart piece by piece cell by cell and you peeked into each one of them, you would not see any of that...you would not find her ego or her "self". Her ego and her conscious life are invisible. Now, she is small enough to have a body, God isn't...and the existence of the consciousness is the presence of the soul and the image in which God made us like him.
How interesting, that the very ability to ponder God's existence and to reason about evidence IS the very evidence for his existence! I love it!!
-
Chapter 11 is a summary of the cumulative case for a creator.
Strobel says...I realized that if I were to embrace Darwinism and it's underlying premise of naturalism, I would have to believe that:
- Nothing produces everything
- Non-life produces life
- Randomness produces fine-tuning
- Chaos produces information
- Unconsciousness produces consciousness
- Non-reason produces reason
[/i]
From his search he became firmly convinced that evolution is a confirmed fact......as long as it's defined as the micro-evolutionary variations we see in animal and plant world. Undeniably, a considerable amount of change and diversification has taken place over time. However, there is simply insufficient evidence from which to draw the radical conclusion that large-scale, macro-evolutionary transitions have occurred.
What he considered impossible years ago he now considered not only possible, but obvious. The"explanatory power" of the design hypothesis outstripped every other theory.
-
Thanks everyone who contributed to this thread! I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book and posting about it helped me reflect in a deeper way. Trying to convey such a vast amount of information in such a limited way was difficult so I would definitely recommend buying or checking out this book from the library!
There was a point in my life that I asked all the questions atheists ask, I never quite went so far as believing God didn't exist but I began to resent him. I threw my bible in anger at scriptures I didn't understand and questioned the character of God that seemed so cruel at times. I felt, there was a God but he hated me and created me out of spite to watch me suffer while he played games with my life.
When I began to feel misery slipping into deep depression at this idea I just made a choice to say, God you MUST love me. I can't go through my life feeling this way, and I decided to suppress those questions that I didn't have answers to and went on my way.
From there God began taking me on a journey to discover Him and joining this forum was no chance happening. I was confronted with the very questions I had asked years ago and buried without answers. The atheists in this forum forced me to dig them up and I began to see things in a new light. I was forced to find answers and that is exactly what God wanted. He didn't want me to walk around in any form of doubt or to believe in Him just for the sake of believing. And most of all He wanted to show me how much He loves me. Through discovering scientific evidence for God I have discovered a new facet of God's love for His creation that I never knew before!
I pray that anyone who is seeking answers that the Holy Spirit guide them in the right direction and with gentleness and love open their eyes to the truth of God and His all encompassing power, love, and grace! :heart:
-
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.
What is wrong with God Glasses? What is wrong with brain washing? There are lot of things in this world to be brainwashed with and we all have a choice. Your choice of the atheism brainwash is your choice and you are entitled to it. You obviously "own" that belief system and hang out with other atheists. Logic ? You have not lived long enough or seen the hell that war, famine and true hell on earth brings to mankind to base your philosphy of logic on making any argument against anothers belief. Quite frankly an atheists philosophy on logic is boring and intellectually lazy. Most atheists have never truly confronted the horror of mankind and his "logic" to why and life. You are naive even from an atheists point of view.
-
shernajwine
wow. i did watch some of the "cause for a creator" and I must say it is quite a pleasure to just hear people postulate/hypothesize about the possibilities and keep an open mind since most likely we won't know until we pass on. One of humanities biggest challenges is to "LET IT GO" and this holds true to the topic of "why are we here." I actually enjoy being kept on my toes a bit about why we are here, if there is a purpose, what we can do and/or are meant/given the opportunity to accomplish. I feel like I get too complacent when I think I have figured out what this whole show is all about and then I remember why I choose to have ideas instead of beliefs, although I do use that term from time to time but usually i use it to describe that I believe the possibilities are infinite or something of the like. watching the films/documentaries on these subjects very directly reminds me of my favorite radio stations, "npr", "wmub", "pri" and a couple others I am having difficulty recalling right now. They speak/report in a very unbiased way and let the listener attempt to decide for themselves. Anyway, enough rambling for now. Thanks again for this epic topic. ;-)
:peace:
-
If you don't have the intellectual capacity or discipline to contribute effectively I am confident everyone would rather your not comment at all.
This statement is disrespectful and uncalled for. Someone needed to challenge this thread so it didn't wind up as one big sales pitch for religion.
And Sherna -- it wasn't atheists that turned me away from god, it was my own research.
-
What is wrong with God Glasses? What is wrong with brain washing?
I don't know whether to laugh or ask you if you're being serious...?!
Quite frankly an atheists philosophy on logic is boring and intellectually lazy.
Really? As compared to a religious person, who thinks there is a magical sky daddy who grants wishes at random and gives people who worship him a Disneyland when they die? Sorry, I grew out of believing in fairy tales by age 10.
Most atheists have never truly confronted the horror of mankind and his "logic" to why and life.
And your explanation is a talking, walking snake and a cursed fruit??
-
If you don't have the intellectual capacity or discipline to contribute effectively I am confident everyone would rather your not comment at all.
This statement is disrespectful and uncalled for. Someone needed to challenge this thread so it didn't wind up as one big sales pitch for religion.
So what if it's one big sales pitch for religion. Haven't you had threads where it's one big sales pitch for athiesm or evolution, ect? QON, you have said some mean, disrespectful, uncalled for things, on different threads to people. You lambast individuals because they don't "see' things your way. You've called people nasty names, or chided them for their belief in God. There's a way to disagree, and a way to debate a point. You have no manners when it comes to anybody debating your athiest postings. You go right for the jugular verbally, and mow down anybody's opinion, not with intelligent debate, but with "bully' tactics.
I agree with lancenweman1978, you don't have the discipline to contribute effectively. Your so angry, and just waiting to "pounce" on anyone who objects to atheistic standing. Challenging a thread is one thing, being downright rude and obnoxious is quite another. Christians are easy targets as they will not retaliate with name calling and rudeness back at you.
Shernajwine gave informative, concise, information on the book she was reviewing. Her honest opinion on the contents she studied. She wasn't pushing it down anyone's throat, just giving her personal feelings about what she read and processed for the answers she was seeking. Then she passed it on to anybody else who was interested.
-
I saw the movie, it was very well done. I also read Case for Christ. Same idea also well done.
-
You go right for the jugular verbally, and mow down anybody's opinion, not with intelligent debate, but with "bully' tactics.
Yes I can be pretty passionate and blunt when I type; it isn't necessarily a reflection of how I'd talk about it offline. It's just a forum...I don't know why you people are so sensitive to freedom of speech. And you don't have enough experience with me to be judging my style of posting anyway, Annella.
-
I just want to say that I'm not going to deny this thread being anything other than what it is. I want to share exciting new things that I learn with people I care about. I didn't want to debate it, of course anyone is free to challenge it but I'm not going to debate specific points because I think it's better for anyone who has an issue with the what the author is saying (and enough to comment about it) should read the author's own words. I could only directly quote so much material, the rest was my own words and it was merely a thread to get people interested in doing their own research.
The god is illogical thread is a pitch for atheism, the shameful christian behavior is a thread to bash christians (based on one in particular christian) as is the, if i were a christian i would prove this as proof of god thread.....so I don't really see what the difference is.
And queen, your own research confirmed your atheism but you said yourself that a friend of yours made a comment about a remark you made about earth being made just for us....or something to the like. And that comment got you thinking about your statement and you also said that a friend directed you to godisimaginary and you said that is the information that completely convinced you that god was a delusion. So you didn't just wake up one day and decide to not believe in God...a seed was planted by someone who made you start questioning your faith.....a faith that was based in feelings and no knowledge and it was so easy from there to *bleep* those feelings away. Being a critical thinker is a good thing and so is being a free thinker but you're not really free thinking when you don't utilize your crap detector......you're a target for clever people who know how to hide the crap in between their words. Clever people who only give you part of the truth to make you believe a lie.
I am of the opinion that evolution is a fairy tale.
After my own research (and mind you I am still at it) but so far my conclusion is that it takes far more faith to believe in evolution....and I want to make clear here that I am talking about the origins of life as explained by evolutionary theory NOT genetic variations within a species over time. There are so many issues and fallacies and hot air balloons in that theory....it blows my mind that any rational thinking person and especially the scientists who constantly prove themselves wrong....continue to claim evolution in this regard, as scientific fact. The fact is that there is a philosophical underbelly to evolution and the fact is that evolution CANNOT explain everything there is to know about our universe and the beginning of life on this planet....evidence is pointing to a creator. Scientists as a whole, discovered the universe is not eternal but IN FACT had a beginning.....evolutionists said...'well, we can't get around that fact anymore so we need to figure out how the universe can be explained by completely natural means'...they don't say this because they have any reason to think there is a rational natural cause but because they won't allow intelligent design to be an option. Forget the fact that intelligent design explains everything they can't....it doesn't matter because there is a lot at stake to keep there materialistic mindset. Are they freethinkers?? Not by the definition I am aware of.
In a recent book I read Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds by Phillip Johnson, I found encouragement because there are people in influential circles who are "putting a wedge" in what appears to be a solid log of fact of evolution. It takes a small wedge to crack open a solid log...a small wedge and with just enough force and we will find that log is actually very hollow.
These people are making a united effort to expose what goes on behind closed doors in the meeting rooms of all branches of science and the politics behind keeping evolution and it's real truth hidden. I am confident that with all the evidence being found, Darwinian evolution is going to be proved as ridiculous as evolutionists think religion is.
Isaiah 45:23
I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
Philippians 2:10
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
There will come a day, when God will reveal Himself in all His glory.
I want to challenge anyone who is reading this thread, if you have doubts of any kind that God cares about you or if you doubt his existence. What have you got to lose but 30 seconds of your time to ask God to help you find Him. If He isn't really there then what harm was there? If He is there and you really want to know the truth, He will be there....and He WILL help you. Don't ask him in sarcastic mockery but if you think even by a small amount that you could be wrong about Him...and you sincerely want the truth. He will help you.
-
You go right for the jugular verbally, and mow down anybody's opinion, not with intelligent debate, but with "bully' tactics.
Yes I can be pretty passionate and blunt when I type; it isn't necessarily a reflection of how I'd talk about it offline. It's just a forum...I don't know why you people are so sensitive to freedom of speech. And you don't have enough experience with me to be judging my style of posting anyway, Annella.
There's nothing wrong with being passionate about something, but rude, obnoxious, calling names, and disrespectful of anybody who doesn't agree with you, is something else altogether. No one is sensitive about Freedom of Speech (cheap shot).
As far as having enough experience about your style of posting?........I can read, and your persona comes through crystal clear. I've read enough of your threads to give me reference of what your about.
I pretty much ignore you and your other 2 followers, but Shernajwine and everybody else, has every right or opportunity to post on this forum without being bullied.
-
I just want to say that I'm not going to deny this thread being anything other than what it is. I want to share exciting new things that I learn with people I care about. I didn't want to debate it, of course anyone is free to challenge it but I'm not going to debate specific points because I think it's better for anyone who has an issue with the what the author is saying (and enough to comment about it) should read the author's own words. I could only directly quote so much material, the rest was my own words and it was merely a thread to get people interested in doing their own research.
Very well said shernajwine.
Thank you for sharing this with us. It is obviously time-consuming.
-
I just want to say that I'm not going to deny this thread being anything other than what it is. I want to share exciting new things that I learn with people I care about. I didn't want to debate it, of course anyone is free to challenge it but I'm not going to debate specific points because I think it's better for anyone who has an issue with the what the author is saying (and enough to comment about it) should read the author's own words. I could only directly quote so much material, the rest was my own words and it was merely a thread to get people interested in doing their own research.
Very well said shernajwine.
Thank you for sharing this with us. It is obviously time-consuming.
If it made anyone think more deeply about such an important issue then it was well worth it, so you're very welcome :)
-
And queen, your own research confirmed your atheism but you said yourself that a friend of yours made a comment about a remark you made about earth being made just for us....or something to the like. And that comment got you thinking about your statement and you also said that a friend directed you to godisimaginary and you said that is the information that completely convinced you that god was a delusion. So you didn't just wake up one day and decide to not believe in God...a seed was planted by someone who made you start questioning your faith.....
I think I know my own history more than you do. The friend who made the comment did NOT direct me to godisimaginary -- I found that site on my own. And that friend's comment was just ONE seed of many...most seeds of doubt were MY OWN after reading the Bible and noticing some things.
But that's what Christians like to do, I guess. Assume atheism is a religion, and that it takes one of the "followers" to convert you. Y'all can't admit that plenty of sincere Christians have walked away on their own, back into reality.
-
I believe in the ancient alien theory ...
-
I have read through this entire thread and NOT said word one, anywhere. Then I see this to queen from you, Annella:
I pretty much ignore you and your other 2 followers
Wow, didn't know I was a follower of anyone - I am not. I also have, as mentioned before, many years of being a believer and a very personal relationship with God. I feel that statement was totally uncalled for. I have kept my thoughts quiet here until seeing that. You don't know me to judge me and that's what I would call a rude statement- something you said Christians do not do. That is all I have to say, but to pull me in when I have NOT posted a thing? :(
-
And queen, your own research confirmed your atheism but you said yourself that a friend of yours made a comment about a remark you made about earth being made just for us....or something to the like. And that comment got you thinking about your statement and you also said that a friend directed you to godisimaginary and you said that is the information that completely convinced you that god was a delusion. So you didn't just wake up one day and decide to not believe in God...a seed was planted by someone who made you start questioning your faith.....
I think I know my own history more than you do. The friend who made the comment did NOT direct me to godisimaginary -- I found that site on my own. And that friend's comment was just ONE seed of many...most seeds of doubt were MY OWN after reading the Bible and noticing some things.
But that's what Christians like to do, I guess. Assume atheism is a religion, and that it takes one of the "followers" to convert you. Y'all can't admit that plenty of sincere Christians have walked away on their own, back into reality.
I apologize queen, I thought I read in an earlier post when you were referring me to that site that you were referred by someone else. I will admit that plenty of sincere christians have walked away, but they didn't just walk away because they woke up one day after years of faith and said....'hmmm all of this seems retarded all of a sudden', there are many factors that can turn sincere christians away from church and God all together.
Church isn't meeting their spiritual needs, the pulpit is used to condemn and drives people to guilt.
They begin to question everything they believe because they are extremely unhappy.
When they get unhappy enough they begin to search out other avenues of belief.
Most christians are driven away from God because of other christians and a lack of relevant involvement in a relevant church. It just so happens that sometimes when being driven away from the church, people are confronted with the idea of there not being a God and if something logical enough is presented and they are interested enough to follow that line of thinking; they will come to atheism or agnosticism on their own or in even more cases they convert to another religion.
I'm not saying any of this applies to you in particular but from my research into statistics and the from the current book I am reading...these are typical situations that leads a person to skeptical thinking. And also because it is the very situation that lead me to my own skeptical thinking and resentment of God.
So again, I apologize....I either misunderstood your statement or I just didn't recall it correctly. :)
-
I have read through this entire thread and NOT said word one, anywhere. Then I see this to queen from you, Annella:
I pretty much ignore you and your other 2 followers
Wow, didn't know I was a follower of anyone - I am not. I also have, as mentioned before, many years of being a believer and a very personal relationship with God. I feel that statement was totally uncalled for. I have kept my thoughts quiet here until seeing that. You don't know me to judge me and that's what I would call a rude statement- something you said Christians do not do. That is all I have to say, but to pull me in when I have NOT posted a thing? :(
It was not meant as a rude comment......it was made as a statement of fact. QON has followers who defend her atheistic position. Christ has followers who defend His Creation/Salvation position.
No names are mentioned. In fact, you have made an effort of trying to help me with one of my problems here on FC. If I've misjudged you previously, I apologize.
However, if you throw a rock into a pack of dogs (not calling you dogs, just a metaphor), the only one that will yelp, is the one who was hit. Don't "own" something that's not yours to own. ;)
-
It is a good video but it barely touches on the details in the book. But I love reading and I always find the books more satisfying than movies or films lol. That's just me :)
-
Well first off, I have to say, Faith is the way to the truth. When so many look with closed eyes, or their eyes only a scientific explanation or evolution, they have not held their eyes open to see the truth.
Maybe some keep seeing that their theories keep proving incorrect. which they are. So they are finally opening their eyes, but only through Faith will they have truth.
-
lynn you are absolutely right about that. the reason is because you can't prove God 100%! There are always going to be gaps that defy explanation and so it still requires faith to believe in Him. The important thing is that we don't have blind faith and believe in Him with no evidence. Reasonable belief in God is based on evidence and personal experience. Science has evidence for God's existence, the bible has historical evidence for Christ and once someone is willing to accept that; it's still a journey to discover a personal God who is very much involved and interested in our lives!
People who are searching for God need plenty of intercessory prayer to overcome the spiritual and psychological hurdles to believing and accepting His truth.
-
They begin to question everything they believe because they are extremely unhappy.
Unhappiness had nothing to do with it for me personally. Although I can totally see why some people would be unhappy in a religion that tells them they were born worthless, dirty, and destined for hell. THIS IS A KEY TENET OF CHRISTIANITY; YOU CANNOT DENY THIS.
Perhaps you've found a church that isn't constantly telling you that all of your success in life is due to god - NOT YOU - and that the world and your sinful life is "a garbage dump" <-- actual description by a radio pastor that I heard today. But I doubt it. I bet your church probably DOES say stuff like this, you just don't realize it.
When they get unhappy enough they begin to search out other avenues of belief.
Once again, for me personally, leaving the flock had nothing to do with unhappiness. It was entirely due to realizing reality and thinking critically. The key thing atheists realize is the ridiculousness of being born against our will (as babies) and then being fated to everlasting torture unless we "believe in" and sacrifice our lives to some vengeful character in the sky.
God's "plan" for all of us can be compared to a rapist with a gun: you can use your "free will" to say no to submitting to the man in control, but if you don't let him take over, he'll blow your brains out and steal your body to do what he wishes with it thereafter. P.S. The rapist loves you.
-
Lol, ok, now so far in this forum we are told by atheists God=charles manson and God=a rapist oh wait (a loving rapist)
*shaking head* lol I don't mean to be condescending but this so ridiculous it isn't worth trying to argue about anymore.
My daughter tried to call me a bully and compared me to the bullies at her school, she was being serious but inside I was laughing at such a comparison. I'm no more a bully to my daughter than God is a murderous loving rapist LOL!!
-
Lol, ok, now so far in this forum we are told by atheists God=charles manson and God=a rapist oh wait (a loving rapist)
*shaking head* lol I don't mean to be condescending but this so ridiculous it isn't worth trying to argue about anymore.
My daughter tried to call me a bully and compared me to the bullies at her school, she was being serious but inside I was laughing at such a comparison. I'm no more a bully to my daughter than God is a murderous loving rapist LOL!!
LOL
-
she was being serious but inside I was laughing at such a comparison.
That is good to hear. Those of us that are free often laugh inside at the many seemingly paradoxes we see all around us. I know now that I am free I look back and just shake my head at how lost and blind I used to be (still am to a degree) but virtually everything I did, learned and knew prior to 25 was really nothing it was all preparation for the next 25 years. We all just need time to be alive for a while before our minds are prepared to comprehend the vastness of all there is to know and if we are fortunate to know what even 1/100000000 of it all means.
Obviously kids are severely insecure, fragile, arrogant, lost and don't have one iota of a clue in that they can afford to be when they have loving parents but they literally just don't fully understand how their words and actions fully affect those around them, partially because they have *bleep* for attention spans and have virtually no memory after the fact of what they say or do. Usually they just move on to the next thing going on in their fragile little minds. The same qualities that make them weak in all these areas are simultaneously what make them great, and that they forget, forgive, let go, trust, believe and are hopeful. They haven't lived long and haven't seen the true world yet, at least most kids, i'm sure the kids from angola would argue that point, but aside from a few exceptions it takes a while to learn to have a decent and accurate moral compass.
The fact you can laugh at the absurdity shows you aren't fragile as many are and can control initial reactions in lieu of well analyzed, planned and appropriate responses and/or reactions. Not being subject to our multitude of emotions and overreactions is a skill not easily tamed but one that is priceless once learned.
So many people are severely insecure, fearful, distrusting, uneducated and much much more and I have seen that sometimes they act out to those around them to inherently and/or instinctually find out whom around them is strong enough to count on to allow them to act out without dire consequences. It seems to be an inherent behavior built into our dna as it truly lets us know who we can count on and whom can handle life's great challenges and then those people naturally have people gravitate towards them of course there are exceptions. Too many people resent those that can let go and still be confident because they are free to some degree and know the little things count for a lot but aren't worth getting stuck on and since many people are raised quite poorly (myself included) it is a clear-cut decision to be patient, generous, kind, loving etc etc towards those still searching to the path as many people were patient with us when we possibly didn't know it because they knew we hadn't reached true freedom yet.
ok this has snowballed enough.