I don't have enough faith to be an atheist!
"(1) The scientific evidence overwhelmingly confirms that the universe exploded into being out of nothing. Either someone created something out of nothing (the Christian view) or no one created something out of nothing (the atheist view) Which view is more reasonable? The Christian view. Which view requires more faith? The atheist view.
(2) The simplest life form contains the information – equivalent of 1,000 encyclopaedias. Christians believe only an intelligent being can create a life form containing 1,000 encyclopaedias. Atheists believe non-intelligent natural forces can do it. Christians have evidence to support their conclusion. Since atheists don’t have any such evidence, their belief requires a lot more faith.
(3) Hundreds of years before hand, ancient writings foretold the coming of a man who would actually be God. This man-God, it was foretold, would be born in a particular city from a particular bloodline, suffer in a particular way, die at a particular time, and rise from the dead to atone for the sins of the world. Immediately after the predicted time, multiple eye witnesses proclaimed and later recorded that those predicted events had actually occurred. Those eyewitnesses endured persecution and death when they could have saved themselves by denying the events. Thousands of people in Jerusalem were then converted after seeing or hearing of these events, and this belief swept quickly across the ancient world. Ancient historians and writers allude to or confirm these events, and archaeology collaborates them. Having seen evidence from creation that God exists, Christians believe these multiple lines of evidence show beyond reasonable doubt that God had a hand in all these events. Atheists must have a lot more faith to try to explain away the predictions, the eyewitnesses testimony, the willingness of the eyewitnesses to suffer and die, the origin of the Christian church and the corroborating testimony of the other writers, archaeological finds and other evidence."
(2) The simplest life form contains the information – equivalent of 1,000 encyclopaedias. Christians believe only an intelligent being can create a life form containing 1,000 encyclopaedias. Atheists believe non-intelligent natural forces can do it. Christians have evidence to support their conclusion. Since atheists don’t have any such evidence, their belief requires a lot more faith.
(3) Hundreds of years before hand, ancient writings foretold the coming of a man who would actually be God. This man-God, it was foretold, would be born in a particular city from a particular bloodline, suffer in a particular way, die at a particular time, and rise from the dead to atone for the sins of the world. Immediately after the predicted time, multiple eye witnesses proclaimed and later recorded that those predicted events had actually occurred. Those eyewitnesses endured persecution and death when they could have saved themselves by denying the events. Thousands of people in Jerusalem were then converted after seeing or hearing of these events, and this belief swept quickly across the ancient world. Ancient historians and writers allude to or confirm these events, and archaeology collaborates them. Having seen evidence from creation that God exists, Christians believe these multiple lines of evidence show beyond reasonable doubt that God had a hand in all these events. Atheists must have a lot more faith to try to explain away the predictions, the eyewitnesses testimony, the willingness of the eyewitnesses to suffer and die, the origin of the Christian church and the corroborating testimony of the other writers, archaeological finds and other evidence."
(I don't have enough faith to be and Atheist: Geisler and Turek)
Comments
Alas, the Scriptural argument very soon falls down because the Bible (or Qur’an, Veda or whatever old bit of parchment is waved beneath our noses in the hope of convincing us) only means something to those who see is as inerrant. If we turn to the New Testament, we come to see that not one scrap of any original documents exist – the earliest complete New Testament dates from around 300AD – and (the Codex Sinaticus at the British Library) deviates considerably in some areas, from the ‘set’ New Testament translations we know today (hence the reason why annotated translations have footnotess with ‘early translations do one have verse X’ or say ‘Y’ or ‘see Septuagint’).
Similarly prophecies can be what you want them to be, particularly when (as Matthew is a clear example) there was a good deal of manipulation of events to fit the ‘prophecies’. If you read something written down 2,400 years ago and then see it fulfilled in something written 1,900 years ago, could it not just be that the author of the latter modified events to fit the former – particularly when you consider it was thirty to fifty years AFTER the events that the Gospels were written? Can you remember, verbatim, the sermon you heard on Sunday? What is someone’s memory going to be like after thirty years? And what happened to that text in the 220 years between it being written down and the first surviving copies. No one knows. So an appeal to Scripture, only works for those who are convinced of the inerrancy of Scripture; but there is just as much, if not more, evidence to suggest the later scriptures were written to fulfil the former – and/or that the earlier scriptures are themselves fiction or at best ‘instructive myth’. Ask an Orthodox Jew or a Muslim what s/he thinks of the inerrancy of the New Testament and they will tell you its faults; often using language and arguments similar to those of Geisler and Turek. Just as Muslims will dismiss the Bible, Jews the New Testament, Hindus will tell you their scriptures are far, far older (and better preserved) than either the Christian or Jewish scriptures. What does one do?
There is only faith, when it comes to religion – once you start demanding or offering ‘proof’ you enter very shaky ground.
Regards:
P.
Peter: I wonder if you are speaking about yourself with this comment?
People who know truth (however arrogant that might sound) don't have to convince themselves but if they believe others will benefit from knowing that truth will try to pass that truth on.
However, maybe those who have doubts about their own worldveiw (or an agenda for avoiding truth) might start not with an argument but by knocking someone personally... "He is kidding himself" Not sure if it was you who last time (under anonymous) started with a suggestion that Edgar Andrews was 'clutching at straws'.
I recently went to a talk with Alister McGraph and Angela Tilby. The given title for the day was "Apologetics in the 21st Century" Actually Tilby was very respectful of McGraph in the morning which was a conversation format between the two.
In the afternoon (in McGraph's absence)she used viscious, patronising language to attack evangelicals (like McGraph) who would be so foolish to stand with his opinion. She was constantly showing how insecure and unsure of herself she was as she made snide comment after snide comment about the evangelical church.
I was privileged to be able to ask the very last question of the day to Tilby and it was this: "Angela, isn't part of the reason why there seems to be a lack of confidence in the church to enter into apologetics that one part of the church is constantly knocking another in public?"
Angela thanked me for the ’excellent’ question and spent about three minutes enthusiastically justifying why she wholeheartedly agreed. As she took her seat ... to stunned silence ... she seemed to at last understand the (2 Samuel:12 type!) irony as her face turned red.
The problem with starting off anything with unsubstantiated suggestions like the person is more trying to convince himself than others is that it is hard to then take seriously (no matter how well argued) what follows.
Oooops now I have done the same to you .... so there is no point commenting on the rest of your comment.
Take care!
Neil
Sat in the corner,
Eating a Christmas pie;
He put in his thumb,
And pulled out a plum,
And said, What a good boy am I!
Well done, Neil!
P.