|I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
|List Price: $15.99
Our Price: $8.99
You Save: $7.00 (44%)
All worldviews, including atheism, require faith. I Don?t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist argues that Christianity requires the least faith of all because it is the most reasonable. The authors lay out the evidence for truth, God, and the Bible in logical order and in a readable, non-technical, engaging style. A valuable aid to those interested in examining the reasonableness of the Christian faith, Geisler and Turek provide a firm challenge to the previous beliefs of doubters of all sorts.
- Ain't that the Truth!
Well written and put together for students and teachers alike. It does not look down it's nose at you, but tells you how to use the truth of the Bible to teach others. And it works. One of the best tactics is called the "Road Runner" and is named after the cartoon. It works is the best part. I have bought 28 of these for family and friends. It is the finest, most readable, and full of excellent examples for the person who needs help in teaching. I give Frank Turek and Norm Geisler great Kudos because they made the decisions that they did without falling into "teacher" traps. They realized that we are all in need of this book....more info
- I changed my position from agnostic to believer
With this book among others, my beliefs have changed from agnostic to believer. -ISP...more info
- Overall, an impressive apologetics for even the layperson
I teach philosophy for a living. This book provides a wonderful outline for a case for God, and despite what some of the other reviewers have stated about its being overly pedantic and gap-filled when it comes to presenting the major theistic arguments, I have found nothing in it that contradicts a more detailed display of such arguments. The authors do a thorough job towards anticipating objections to their arguments (as any good philosopher should find it obligatory and prudential to do). The goal of the authors, I would presume, is to present a case that could be put into one volume and that could be intelligible to a "lay audience" (although such a term is snobbish, really...) I've taught a course in the philosophy of religion for two years now. When I began teaching the course, I was decidedly agnostic. Teaching the course (and reading this book after it was recommended to me by a colleague and a loved one) changed my mind. I am now a proud Christian, and I don't mind admitting as much to my students (although I wait until the end of the semester to do so... I want them to make up their own minds and not simply tell me what they think I want to hear!...) I am not writing this review because I am now a Christian (or on behalf of Christians per se), but merely because I'm a philosopher. This is not just a book written to provide "comfort" to already existing Christians, as one reviewer has suggested. If that were the case, the Bible itself would be enough to do that... The title is spot-on. Atheism really is a faith. Any worthy philosopher knows that when it comes to things that cannot be empirically verified, the best one can do is present a philosophical case for them. Contrary to common impression, the atheist is not privy to some "special" set of data or empirical evidence that theists are not privy to (or willfully deny). When it comes to matters of the origin of the universe, to the nature of existence and ultimate reality, to purpose (or lack thereof, according to some), etc..., the most our human minds can do is to be satisfied with arguments for this or that that are of a fundamentally and necessarily philosophical nature. In any case, there is a wealth of empirical and historical evidence pointing towards theism than the atheist has at their disposal to show, through evidence, that atheism is the reality. Given this, the atheist is certainly, it seems, not at an advantage. This book shows that the atheist is actually at a remarkable disadvantage. Hence the title chosen by the authors. In any case, the authors openly admit that their concision is intentional for the sake of presenting a clear and widely intelligible and accessible case for God. And that's exactly why the authors don't shy away from providing an honestly robust bibliography to encourage further research. I recommend this book to my students. Of course this is not a book written for atheists (as one reviewer has suggested)! How could it be? It's a refutation of atheism of course! Atheists that would be drawn to read this work either aren't true atheists (and are really agnostics looking to be convinced of something) or are sincere atheists seeking to find fault in the arguments presented. My advice to sincere atheists??? Don't read this book...!! You run the perilous risk of ceasing to be an atheist!!!...more info
- A frustrating book
I'm new to apologetics and the arguments of evolution and creation, theists and atheists and the such. I have been reading books and listened to debates on the subject. I was looking for a book that outlined, explained and provided evidence for a creator or at least identified the proofs and facts for why theists believe in a creator. Instead all I got was a book that explained everything that was wrong with the 'atheists' arguments and very little of the former. Its frustrating to read these books because they spend more time arguing why the other is wrong instead of concentrating their efforts on arguing their own points. The 'atheists' books that I've read tend to do less mud slinging and spend more time stating their points than the 'theists' ones. This book does a much better job of reinforcing the beliefs of a believer than shaking the foundation of a non-believer.
I was also frustrated by the use of probability as a reason for a creator. This idea of "what are the chances of things being as they are today." But this assumes that the result of things being as they are today was planned from the start. So it feels backwards to figure out the probability of things as they are today. If you apply this thinking it makes everything that happens nearly improbable. For instance, what are the chance of me being alive? My parents needed to meet, they needed to be born so, my grandparents needed to meet and their parents needed to meet so on and so on. All of the circumstances and things that needed to happen for me to be alive is nearly improbable unless me being here was planned from the start.
I'm paraphrasing but, the authors state that in order for things to be just right and as they are today to support life that there is one chance in one number with 138 zeros after it. Therefore there must be a creator. The authors are confusing probability as evidence. Later in the book they denounce David Hume's anti-miracle argument because they say that "Hume confuses probability with evidence." So where it benefits the authors case they use probability as reinforcement and then in the other case say probability is bunk reasoning.
One final thought is the idea behind DNA and the single cell that houses 1000 encyclopedia's full of data and how could this 'just happen'. (I'm probably way out of my league here.) The authors say that 'Darwinists' (isn't it evolutionists?) say this cell magically appeared. I'm no biologist but isn't it stated that evolutionists don't say that life started at this single 1000 encyclopedia cell but that the original cells had no DNA and reproduction started by division (falling apart) and slowly grew from there?
Overall, if you are a believer this will reinforce your original beliefs as it enhances and explains stuff you've already been taught and/or studied. If you are a non-believer its just going to leave you frustrated and you'll have to try another book like I will have to do....more info
- all the proof is based on assumptions
this book actually had me laughing at some points. he makes references of how god is now proven to exsist based on evidence that he presented. the worst of them being the whole earth is so fine tuned to support life that it could not have arisen by chance. this assumes that life was supposed to be on earth. if the conditions were different, no life would exist. this does not prove a god. it proves evolution more than anything. the other laugher was the whole every complex system requires a designer, machines are not naturally found in nature. this is decisively false, complex machines in nature are found in the form of cells. he assumes that these had to be created, removing the solution from his arguement. his knowledge of evolution sucks, as a biology major, evolution is undisputable. he says god is infinite love, and yet he casts away most of all his children into a pit of fire for etenity to suffer without any chance of saving. i try to give religion an even shot against athiesm, but books like this only make me angry at christianity...more info
- The first MUST-READ book for teenagers and adults alike
I just have to recommend this awesome book about Christianity that will make your hair curl! I should start out by saying that I rarely have time for books and I can honestly say that over the past 10 years or so there have been just three books that have really 'lit my candle', but this one I can barely put down.
"I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" presents an amazing sequence of facts that lead you through the following (and more)...
- Truth about reality is knowable
- The opposite of true is false - you can't have two truths that contradict
- Is it true that the theistic God exists (talking about the beginning of the universe, the design of the universe, the design of life, and moral law)
- If God exists, miracles are possible
- Miracles can be used as messages from God
- The New Testament is historically reliable
- The New Testament says Jesus claimed to be God
- Jesus' claim to be God was miraculously confirmed
- Therefore Jesus is God
- Whatever Jesus (God) teaches is true
- Jesus taught that the Bible is the word of God
- Therefore it's true that the Bible is the Word of God and anything opposed to it is false
A friend lent this book to me, and I liked it so much that I bought more copies. I've used some of the illustrations, arguments and thoughts in the book to help guide my three kids as they are bombarded with secular nonsense (especially evolution) at school and not only that by it's an awesome and fascinating read. Plus it's only $10 on Amazon!! It's a no-brainer... go get it... it will strengthen your faith and much, much more!...more info
- Intriguing, but not quite convincing.
As far as refuting atheism, I think this book does quite a swell job of that. As far as proving Christianity, there are many good, intriguing arguments, but there are a number of essential things that just seem a little problematic. Honestly my main problem with this book is how the authors reinforce again and again that God cannot violate someone's free will. For one, they completely neglect to even mention the doctrine of election, which is much more than a mere side-note in the New Testament, and two they neglect to mention that by their standards, Abraham, Moses, the Apostles, Paul, and perhaps a few others have all had their free will violated by God if we suppose their argument. At first this free will matter was only briefly touched on and not mentioned again for a long time and if it had been left as such a mere side-point it would have been fine, but it was stressed continually in the latter part of the book and they made it a very central piece of their argument, which kind of grants a certain measure of discrediting their overarching case. Nonetheless, the book is intriguing and will really make you think and perhaps even offer a few surprises that will surely pique interest. Whether they convince you or not it is thought-provoking enough to be worth reading....more info
- Common Ground Between Us
The whole premise of this book struck me as an example of Christians shooting themselves in the foot. So, as an atheist, I give the book high marks.
By claiming that it takes more faith to be an atheist, they are basically admitting that they agree with the atheist on one of his central points: faith is bad. I recommend this book to anyone who ever tried to end an argument by saying "Well, I just have faith."
Obviously, this entire book is a testament to the idea that evidence and reason are better than faith and superstition. Everybody wants science and evidence on their side, and when they resort to 'faith,' it's as good as admitting that they don't have a decent argument.
So credit where it's due, to this book for attempting to construct scientific arguments for Christianity. Unfortunately, a poor scientific argument is even worse than the non-argument of faith, because while a statement of faith is neutral, a faulty argument actively repels. This book will create more atheists, which is why I give it five stars.
- Wonderful Book!
I would highly recommend this book to anyone questioning his/her faith. I learned a great deal from this book. ...more info
- Not the book you might think...
It should be made clear in the beginning whom this book is for: it is not for the philosophical or scientific atheist, nor is it for someone who is familiar with classic Christian apology. The arguments this book contains have all appeared before, and many have been discussed, refuted, or otherwise addressed elsewhere, and in much greater depth. Many of the subjects in the book are broached with little care and less thoroughness, such that if you've encountered books on these subjects separately, their treatment here will seem minimal at best.
This is, instead, a book for the closet Christian, someone waiting to have their faith convinced back into them, and who has little to no grounding in traditional philosophy. It is also a book for young debaters looking to brush up on their technique before their next go-around, someone looking to make quick points, rather than someone looking for a lasting basis of belief.
The authors goal is to build a sequential case for a creator, and then upon that prove that creator to be the Trinity of modern Christian belief. Unfortunately, the logic for the initial steps isn't satisfying or thorough, which leaves the atheist with no basis to move on. As the book progresses, the authors repeatedly affirm that they have successfully proven a theist god, and use this as sole buttress of many later points, so that those that feel the theism point still unsatisfactorily addressed will find much of the later reasoning hollow. Also, as mentioned in previous reviews, the authors too frequently wish to have their logic and eat it too, setting aside logical objections they actively used against their opponents when they contradict their own case. In one prime example of this irony, they use the Christian Old Testament to prove Jesus as the Messiah, then use his sayings as collected in the New Testament to prove the Old Testament.
As mentioned, many of the subjects here have been adequately addressed elsewhere, from atheistic morality (which gets perhaps the saddest short-shrift) to the Kalam Cosmological Argument (which is brought out from under the rug, flashed about, then swept back under all in a little more than a page). The reader, if consulting this book alone, will get a comfortingly/terrifyingly one-sided view of these issues which is repeatedly affirmed as logically sound by the harrying authorial voice.
This is, perhaps, the most frustrating aspect of this book: the blustering, smug, and frequently insulting authorial voice. These authors clearly honed their abilities in debate, and the relentless point-scoring and eerily-similar debate war stories become wearisome by the half-way mark. Like many other speakers of this type, their anecdotes are filled with shocked silences as the speaker wittily and roundly demolishes his hapless straw-stuffed opponent. This is courtroom-show melodrama, and like many other things written for live argument, the rhetoric doesn't quite convert itself to the more stoic arena of the written word, where time is on the reader's side, and a small amount of research can dash a point so dashingly scored.
All these objections, however, would not be enough to make the book disappointing. After all, it is no different than what I've seen of the worst of the atheistic literature. Rather, it is disappointing because this book was recommended to me as one of the better books on apology recently. If this is indeed the case, then I cannot help but be disappointed for apology. The best argumentative literature should raise the discourse above name calling, and address issues with mutual respect, and with an air to ferret some degree of truth from the proceedings. This book never approaches such high-minded discourse.
Instead, we get affirmations that teaching evolution turns children into criminals (yes, this is actually said, straight out) and that college professors amount to some mystical relativist brainwashing cult (this isn't hard to extrapolate either). If you are a genuine seeker of information on the real debate between the theistic and atheistic world-views, you owe it to yourself to look elsewhere for your sources. If, however, you're a Christian whose faith is in doubt, you can hardly have a more comforting book than this....more info
- good apologetic book
This is the ideal all-in-one book for you to share with your doubting friends and to bolster your faith in Truth. You owe yourself a read.
The authors show that Christian faith and reason are not mutually exclusive, but complementary and that there is an abundance of evidence for the truth of Christianity. Conversely, they show that it is impossible to be an atheist without a substantial amount of faith.
- The Best of its Kind
I read this book prepared to hate it just based on the title and the fact that it is devoted to "Christian Apologetics." I figured it would be the typical creationist argument along with ridiculous philosophical arguments that are so typical of many apolgetics writers. I have to say that this is the best book I have read presenting evidence in support of theism and intelligent design. I am an agnostic on matters of religion and more often than not I am unimpressed by advocates of ID, natural theology, etc. This book is well researched, easy to read, and does not stretch the facts like most others do. ...more info
- I dont want to believe
Dont forget that Dr. Geisler and Josh Mcdowell have never lost a debate.
It's easy to "try" to refute the authors when they cant hear you....Go ahead organize a debate with them, if none of the so called "top athiests" cant debunk them what makes you think you can. Oh yeah, dont bother trying to debate me go ahead and contact the authors.
Outstanding book couldnt put it down....more info
- The Honest Pursuit of Truth
Anyone who earnestly pursues the truth must be prepared to ultimately believe things that make them uncomfortable or that they simply don't like. Starting with a closed world view (i.e. all processes are natural) constrains the discovery of absolute truth. One must challenge one's self to avoid the pitfalls of intellectual stubbornness and fear. Those who are not willing to be changed by their discoveries are trapped in a closed universe made in their own image.
This book approaches the discovery of truth through rational and careful study of the evidences that are available to all of us. I discovered only a couple of theological points that drifted from this otherwise rigorous approach. After reading countless books on cosmology, Christian apologetics, philosophy, evolution, the Bible, etc., I recommend this book to anyone who is honestly pursuing the truth. ...more info
- Great Book
This is perhaps one of the greatest tools one can ask for in being equipped to deal with questions and possible doubts of one's own christian faith but it also equips you to deal with others who would present questions and doubts as to why you belive what you believe as relates to christianity....more info
- The title of his book is proof of his lack of intelligence.
Anybody who has the ability to think clearly would understand how misleading and disengenous this book title is. Another deceiving christian tactic ho hum. Deception is not a virtue *cough cough*. First off an atheist LACKS a belief in a theistic god or gods. An atheist has found the arguments and purported evidence shown by believers of a theistic god or gods to be wanting. Negative atheism. He or she has found NO REASONS to believe in a theistic god or gods. He or she has found through the use of reason and what we know of the natural world and how it works in naturalistic terms, reasons for not invoking any supernaturalism into the world and hence no reason to believe in a theistic god or gods. Positive atheism. Neither assesment involves faith whatsoever, it involves looking at the evidence and using your reasoning skills that you use in daily life and not turning them off when thinking about religious matters. It is following the evidence wherever the evidence leads you despite your wishes and hopes. Faith is specifically believing IN SPITE of NO evidence or lack of evidence or an insufficent degree of evidence. That is intellectually dishonest but your right nonetheless. It is also not a virtue despite what people commonly think for some reason. If you were shown a math problem and understood the conclusion yet willed yourself to disbelieve it in spite of the evidence would that be a virtue? You cannot cop out by saying religion is an altogether different category because it involves faith. If belief in god just involved faith when all is said and done(which it surely seems to be) then why does theology exist? Why do people keep discussing what this or that scriptural writing means? Why do believers try to use science when it seems to support some historical conclusion yet ignore science when it falsifies claims of religion? Why are they trying to put religion in science classrooms? ("unintelligent design") Of course finding history in the bible or any other sacred book is not surprising but it says nothing in regards to the metaphysics. Most sane humans lack a belief in gnomes yet I seriously doubt people define themselves as agnomist or say they have no faith in gnomes! People lack beliefs in an infinite amount of objects, do they define themselves as apurplecowist,aflyingnunist who lack faith in these objects! No. Does that mean they have faith in the non existence of these objects. Once again NO. They have good reasons to not believe in them. They know the emperical evidence does not exist at this time and the probabability of evidence ever coming into light is low. If evidence comes along to suggest gnomes exist then the agnomist will no longer be a agnomist and will become a gnomist. Pretty simple. Once again the conversion from a non belief to a belief has nothing to do with faith. In fact I would suggest the probability of the existence of gnomes, purple cows and flying nuns to be higher then the probability of a theistic god or gods(especially defined by "sacred" books which you most assurdely must have faith in in spite of the innumerable claims falsified). Why? Because we actually do have evidence of people with dwarfism. Small people exist. We have evidence of cows and of purple objects. We have evidence of nuns and the ability of other species of animals to fly and the ability of engineers to devise flying machines! We see flying objects in the sky. They are called planes! LOL. So there is no faith involved in atheism because there is no belief to begin with. It is a LACK of belief. Understood? If you have no reason or reasons to believe in the existence of an object then faith hardly comes into the picture. Understood? Do you the believer have FAITH that atheist exist? lol. I don't have faith in the existence of believers, I have evidence and good reasons to back up my belief in their existence! Atheism is a LACK of belief. Just like you lack a belief in hobgoblins. If you believed in hobgoblins contrary to all the facts of the world then that is FAITH. So quit saying atheism is a religion or faith movement in itself when there is no belief in the first place that defines it. ...more info
- Great book for any seeker
This book is awesome for anyone seeking the truth about God and the Bible. It also provides solid thoughtful, historical and scientific information that supports the biblical record....more info
An outstanding presentation of the many questions and theories concerning God , belief, and faith.
A must read for believers as well as atheists
Jim Moseley...more info
- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN
I've read a lot of apologetics, but "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek is the very best, ever! I wish every one in the world would read it. I don't know how any one could read this book and not come away believing that God created everything and Jesus is God. They prove intelligent design with overwhelming scientific evidence, not blind faith. ...more info
- A good book but consider opposing views in regards to effectivity of Natural Theology
I recieved this book for my birthday from a friend who thought I might enjoy reading it. I did - and it is a good book to be read, probably by someone who is on the fence regarding making a decision for Christ, or those who would like to bone up on on being able to respond to concerns regarding the scripture, scriptural authority, etc. - BUT...
However- having said that - it is important to frame this book from within the theological view that it is written and that is that the idea of an Ontological Argument is possible, or that one can prove the existence of God. This is a part of what is termed Natural Theology and it is important for anybody who has an intrest in theology to understand what Natural Theology is, who is for it and who is against it and what is said in regards to it. This is - to me - a much larger and more important question to ask in regards to the entire framework that this book seeks to present itself from within. This book is a typical defense of Natural Theology. For an alternate view - from a likewise strong Christian viewpoint (not written by unbelievers or flakes) read Paul C. McGlasson's Invitaton to Dogmatic Theology, a Canonical Approach, specifically the chapter entitled scripture as witness to Christ. Also consider reading Karl Barth's "Nein!" his response to his theological contemporary Swiss Theologian Emil Brunner's treatise on the acceptable use of Natural Theology. A critical point of Barthinian theology is a rejection of "reason" as a basis for faith- and an elevation of scripture and scripture alone for any foundation for belief. Consider the words of those who will tell you that that there is no need to "tip your hat at unbelief" by proposing a "logical" argument for Christ. McGlasson makes the claim that the desire to do such is indeed unnecessary baggage left over from the Enlightenment and there exists within an authentic and whole theological world view no need for excuses, logic, or reason, nor proof. Faith does not come from an argument but from hearing and hearing from the word of God. Some will argue that that "hearing" is arguments about the Word -I find myself finding more common ground with Barth that there is no argument needed in the hearing, rather that that hearing is the Word and the Word alone - self authenticating and self- authorizing....more info
- Excellent Course In Logic
This is a terrific book if you want to see principles of logic misused. Very educational.
The book and ideas are built on the foundation of nearly every logical fallacy, specifically The Straw Man, Argument from Ignorance and False Dichotomy.
Atheists are used as examples in every point made, obviously, but what an atheist actually is changes depending on how it will help prove the premise.
They even break out the hoary old "Atheism is religion" argument.
The way logical arguments are laid out and then mangled, misunderstood and ignored is truly fascinating.
Here's everything you need to know to understand that god exists.
1. Since you don't know what happened before the big bang, it's god.
2. Atheists aren't moral.
3. God exists because it says so in the bible.
4. Since Einstein said "god" once, god exists.
5. Scientists make mistakes.
6. Atheists believe that when you die you turn into worm food. When you believe in god, you can go to heaven.
Turek seems to have had an excellent education and, like good science geeks, expresses great admiration for the great minds, logical discourse and discoveries in cosmology but mangles every conclusion.
Remove each conclusion and you have an excellent book detailing the reasons to understand that there is no god.
Fascinating. Just fascinating....more info
Having lost faith and taken a skeptical approach to religion I was hopeful that this book would lead me into rethink.
No way! Tired and inaccurate, not a waste of time though as I found myself constanly jumping up with "That's not true." "What a jump!" and that's a downright fabrication!"...more info
- Good science used to make strong assertions backed up by spuriously drawn conclusions and the right missing details.
I found the book to be well written, in terms of it's English, but poorly in terms of the content of that English. It is thoughtful, and clearly the authors have deeply held views to which they have gone to extensive lengths in order to support. Unfortunately they have done it poorly. They make many, many, many very strong assertions which are unjustified and indeed often unrelated to their long attempts at evidence.
That along with their insistence on such things as atheism being a religion, atheists and scientists being synonymous, use of science fiction as evidence, equating of religious faith and dogma with scientific faith in science and in evidence and acceptance of good theories, misrepresentation of evolution as being like instant complexity coming about by accident, incorrect equating of complexity with design, and many other examples takes away from their claims at reasonableness and intellectual rigor.
They spend an enormous amount of time and space in their book refuting an eternal universe and laying down the evidence for the big bang creation - at which point all matter, space, and time came into existence - all as if this is a currently raging debate. Indeed the only people who would argue with their evidence on this are the religious, for example of the kind who think the universe is a few thousand years old. Instead it could all just stipulated at the beginning, since this is the currently accepted theory by virtually all, instead of wasting so much effort.
From this they then draw the conclusion that a creator must have created the something out of nothing and that atheists bear the burden of explaining otherwise.
A few brief points...
1/ If we accept that there was a creator then to stretch that to being an all loving, monitoring, intervening, prayer listening, judging, punishing, heaven running, all good entity is something they provide no evidence for with all of this use of good science. They just make the deist to theist leap.
2/ The atheist/scientist simply has to say: we don't know what caused the big bang because science hasn't worked it out yet. The fact that quantum mechanics and relativity break down at dimensions and masses close the the point of the big bang singularity mean that we have further work to do on our theories, and we're not going to go dreaming up something just because we like the sound of it to explain something we don't know. We are happy to wait until further work is done and evidence comes in.
3/ The authors cite examples of conversations with various scientists and atheist debaters and even Issac Asimov, clearly out of context, in which the people sound like they were joking, too tired or too busy to give a proper answer, or not qualified to give an answer, or are writers of fiction!, rather than citing their published scientific works for example, in order to make further strong and unjustified assertions often lumping together all scientists, or all atheists, under broad categories of ignorance or error attributed to these poor examples.
This is but one tiny example and a few of the things they do wrong with it - the book is crammed with assertions and arguments that do not stand up to inquiry. They go on to give similar evidence on other big questions, for example regarding the complexity of life, and using it as evidence for a designer, and in each case leave out just enough detail to make their ideas plausible to someone who is ignorant of those details.
The use of good science to make strong assertions backed up by spuriously drawn conclusions and the right missing details at each point made me cringe in frustration - and made me want to write a reply to each and every one of greater length and detail and with greater care and thought than the simple short example I've given above.
A believer will jump at this book as confirmation of their belief, and perhaps a good thing about the book is that it may bring many believers who didn't previously believe in the science to accept and appreciate it - and perhaps be one step closer to being able to see through the presentation given here.
Having said all that I did find the book very valuable in giving me further insight into the thinking and rationals behind beliefs and justifications of these sorts, and especially in the American context, and I thank the authors for that. It's unfortunate that people thinking along these lines will find great comfort and support for those beliefs in these pages....more info
- A POWERFUL FAITH BUILDER
This book is one of the most powerful and well-documented books on apologetics I have seen. One cannot read this book with intellectual honesty and still not believe in God. It is extremely solid. I offer a friendly challenge to any skeptic or atheist: Read with an open mind, and your life will be changed!
D. E. Theobald, San Jose, Ca...more info
- there is no certain proof..
that God exists. That is why belief in God is called "faith".
But no one can prove He does not exist. That is called "common sense".
Let's sum up what should be obvious to everyone about this debate:
1. The existence of God can not be proven
2. Evolution can not be proven.( Don't quote piltdown man or carbon dating of fossils,as these and all other "proofs" of evolution could be hoaxes and/or frauds, or misconstrued conclusions. No one was around "billions" of years ago to verify the beginning of the universe, the earth, and later the beginning of cavemen or whatever the evolutionists would call early man).
3.For every proof religion can give, evolutionists can refute(they say)
4. Whatever proof evolution can give, religion can dispute( usually using Scripture as the source).
So, what are you to believe?
This evening, look out into the star-filled sky. Ask yourself this:
Is this the work of a Creator, or is this just a bunch of "stuff" that coincidentally self-generated? What does your "gut instinct" tell you?
But remember: what you decide could have eternal consequences. Choose well....more info