[LJ6]≡ Download Free I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist Norman L Geisler Frank Turek David Limbaugh 9781581345612 Books

I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist Norman L Geisler Frank Turek David Limbaugh 9781581345612 Books

Download As PDF : I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist Norman L Geisler Frank Turek David Limbaugh 9781581345612 Books

I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist Norman L Geisler Frank Turek David Limbaugh 9781581345612 Books

Book makes very convincing arguments at different levels, both religious and scientific, in support of a “Prime Mover,” All-Powerful, intelligent, monotheistic Being, witnessed and recorded in reliable and honest ways by the Apostles. These and more are in support of the conclusion that it takes more convincing arguments to convince the present authors of the opposite- Natural Selection, Darwinism, etc.
However, some of the Authors’ arguments were unclear and therefore, less convincing. I am especially referring to their discussion of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the expanding Universe, etc, in short most of Chapter 3: The Great Surge. I did not follow and found myself searching Wikipedia to clarify some of the scientific concepts brought up by the authors with little help. Most of the remaining chapters, however, were very well done. The authors postulate most possible philosophical arguments that could have or have actually been laid against their premises, and their responses are very convincing. Logically, one can either believe the authors or not, depending if you “feel” like believing in convincing arguments about the existence of God, or not.
One other thing: copyright 2004, book may benefit from some updated references by now (2018).
Overall, outstanding work. 5 stars.


Tags : I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist [Norman L. Geisler, Frank Turek, David Limbaugh] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. To some, the concept of having faith in a higher power or a set of religious beliefs is nonsensical. Indeed,Norman L. Geisler, Frank Turek, David Limbaugh,I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist,Crossway,1581345615,Christian Life - General,Christianity - General,Faith,Apologetics.,Apologetics,Christian Theology - Apologetics,Christianity,Non-Fiction,RELIGION Christian Life General,RELIGION Christian Theology Apologetics,RELIGION Christianity General,RELIGION Faith,RELIGIOUS,Religion,Religion - Theology,ReligionEthics

I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist Norman L Geisler Frank Turek David Limbaugh 9781581345612 Books Reviews

This is a great book for us Christians who want to be able to tell others clearly why they believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior. It is also a valuable source for those who don't know Him but are looking for the truth. I had a bit of confusion when I started reading the appendices but I found the book very helpful.
Recommended by our pastor who just finished his apologetics PhD and dissertation on transgenderism. Dr. Marty Baker, Burke Community Church, Burke, VA. My hubby and I listened to it on Audible and enjoyed it so much we ordered the old fashion paper version. I even suggested a quote from it for my son's HS paper about the argument for/against government sponsored religion. While his choice was the US model of separation of church and state Geisler had an excellent quote from a philosophical speaker about the argument for morality proving God's existence. If you're an on-the-fence agnostic you need to read this. If you're a devout atheist definitely read this and be prepared to be pissed, offended and humbled.
I am a 25 year old Cali girl who began to doubt God's existence when I was in college. I have read a lot of books defending the Christian faith (Cold- Case Christianity, Case for Christ, Why Jesus?, etc.), and this book is BY FAR the best. Unlike many other apologetic books that only talk about why the New Testament writers were telling the truth/ how we can trust that the Bible is the Word of God, "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" begins with disproving the self- defeating post- modern notion that "truth is relative", to showing how science and reason point to a theistic God, and all the way to proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus is the Son of God as He claimed He was. I have bought at least 200 of these books to give to fellow Christians and atheist friends and family and am organizing an event to fly Dr. Turek out to come speak on our University Campus. This book presents evidence that demands a verdict that no sane/ intelligent person can deny. Whether you are a Christian, Athesit, Hindu, or Muslim, this book is one of the most important books you'll ever read!
Chap 1 Frank&Norm state “Why do we demand truth in everything but morality and religion?” Morality is subjective based on individuals and a bit less subjective at a sociable level which is based on consensus of opinion, which is how we develop laws. I agree with the second part; why don’t more people demand truth from religion? I know I do. They go on “…our rejection of religious and moral truth is often on volitional rather than intellectual ground-we just don’t want to be held accountable to any moral standards or religious doctrine.” First show me a religious truth and a moral truth. Second, we are held accountable for moral standard by other humans. As for religious doctrine, what accountability is there? If god holds us accountable you need to demonstrate that god exists before that claim can be verified. Frank&Norm state “…Truth is not relative but absolute.” Yes. Gravity exists. To the best of our abilities we can determine & demonstrate that statement is objectively true. Gravity exists regardless of your opinion or your desire. The same cannot be said for morality or religious claims. Frank&Norm provide a list of qualities of truth. I will tentatively agree with most of them but Frank stated All truths are absolute truths and he uses this example. “I, Frank Turek, feel warm on November 20, 2003.” What if Frank lied when he wrote this statement? Is the statement still absolutely true? They keep trying to hammer home the point that there is such a thing as truth and here is the why, “For if you can kill the concept of truth, then you can kill the concept of any true religion or any true morality.” Neither of these things can be shown to be objectively true. Frank&Norm go on to give an example where one of them went to a person, who happens to be a “strawman” atheist”, and asked this question, “If you were to die tonight and stand before god, and god were to ask you, ‘Why should I let you into my heaven?’ what would you say?” For their narrative the strawman’s argument was foiled with their superior replies and he was converted to Christianity (Halleluiah & Amen). This story might be true or not. If Frank&Norm showed up at my door asking this question I would invite them in to sit and have a conversation. This “gotcha” question requires much further discussion. What god are we speaking of? If it is the Christian god how do I know if it is really god or not the devil in disguise? How can I determine the nature of this being? I would need WAY more information prior to me being able to answer this question, which includes the claims that a god exists, a soul exists, a heaven exists, this god decides where people go after they die, etc. Frank&Norm imply belief is a choice “…many of us who deny there’s truth in religion are not actually blind but only willfully blind.” Belief is not a choice and this is demonstrably true.
Chap 2 Frank&Norm State “…in order to find truth, one must be ready to give up those subjective preferences in favor of objective facts. And facts are best discovered through logic, evidence and science.” I agree. They go on to focus on the laws of logic (Identity, Non Contradiction, & Excluded Middle), specifically non contradiction. They use this example “…either Jesus died and rose from the dead as the bible claims, or he did not as the Qur’an claims.” However these are NOT mutually exclusive claims. What if Jesus never existed other than as a character in a story book? Frank&Norm are making an unverifiable assumption that Jesus was a real person and the stories in the bible are true (factually accurate) but cannot demonstrate them to be true. Frank&Norm then go on to tell a “gocha” story of another “skeptic” professor who was “one-upped” in a class room setting. Frank&Norm claim to have stood before the class and disproved the principles of empirical verifiability which states that there are only two kinds of meaningful propositions 1. Those that are true by definition & 2. Those that are empirically verifiable. Frank&Norm feel they shot down the 2nd principle because “Since the principle of empirical verifiability itself is neither true by definition nor empirically verifiable, it cannot be meaningful.” He further states, “…the principle of empirical verifiability could not be meaningful based on its own standard.” Do you see the switch here? These 2 principles are an “or” statement not an “and” statement. If either apply then it is valid. The 2nd principle IS true by definition. If a proposition is empirically verifiable then it is true. Both principles are descriptive. Here is an example for the 1st principle 2+2=4. This is true by definition, but numbers don’t exist in and of themselves. They were created by people to describe quantities of real things. Here is an example for principle 2 I have a baseball and you have a baseball, therefor we have 2 baseballs. That is both true by definition and empirically verifiable. They move on to “knowing the real world.” The answer is we can only perceive the world through our senses. The world is what we perceive it to be. Can we know for certain that what we perceive is accurate? Maybe, maybe not; but we have no other way to perceive it so we have to accept that we are perceiving it with some accuracy because we can confirm what we perceiving with other humans. These points are just a lead up to the question “Can we know if god exists?” They want us to use “induction” to investigate god, by observing the effects of a god. (We will see more later.) Then Frank&Norm make this ridiculous (and offensive) statement “…If the atheists are right, then we might as well lie, cheat, and steal to get what we want because this life is all there is, and there is no consequences in eternity.” Frank&Norm actually believe that this is what atheists want? I have no interest in lying, cheating, or stealing! There are real world consequences for these actions. I understand this (as do most human beings). There is absolutely no need for eternal consequences for anyone to cooperate with their fellow human beings in a kind and respectful manner.
Chap 3 The Cosmological Argument which consists of premises 1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause 2. The universe had a beginning 3. Therefore the universe had a cause. Frank&Norm claim that “…the universe did not emerge from existing material but from nothing.” This is a misleading statement. The scientific understanding of “nothing” is different from the colloquial understanding of nothing. Nothing is a concept of the mind. We understand the concept of nothing because it is the opposite of something (for which we have many examples). Scientists understand there are things, like virtual particles, which exist in what most would all “empty space.” They go on to state that space and time began to exist at the point of the big bang, which is a fairly accurate statement. They go on to give a bunch of “evidence” which end with them stating “if there is no god, why is there something rather than nothing?” Here is the intellectually honest answer; We (human kind) do not know. That’s it. We do not have the current capability to see past plank time so we don’t know what caused the big bang, nor what existed prior to the big bang. We may never know. Inserting the assumption that a very specific god did it is simply an argument from ignorance (god of the gaps argument). Frank&Norm do not know if what they are asserting is true and need to stop pretending they know things which they can’t possibly know.
Chap 4 The Teleological Argument 1. Every design has a designer, 2. The universe has highly complex design; 3. Therefore, the universe has a designer. This is simply jumping to a conclusion. Complexity does NOT indicate a designer. Example Snowflakes are extremely complex and we fully understand how they develop by purely natural means. Also, just stating it had a “designer” doesn’t indicate what that designer is. It could be super advanced aliens for example. Again, to point to a specific god as a designer of the universe you MUST demonstrate that god exists or else I can insert anything I want universe designing leprechauns designed the universe. Then they make this claim, “In fact, the universe is specifically tweaked to enable life on earth…” Then they go on about all of these mathematical calculations to show how low the probability is for life. But they are doing the math backward. They are taking what we have, the current conditions, and adjusting variables. However, if those variables were slightly different life AS WE KNOW IT may not have developed on earth but that doesn’t mean life would not have arose. Here is a statistic 99.99999999…..% of the universe is toxic to humans. Even the majority of our planet is not habitable without our current technology (Oceans, colder areas, deserts, etc). They also mention the Anthropic Principle (the cosmological principle that theories of the universe are constrained by the necessity to allow humans to exist) which philosophical principle. Philosophy deals with concepts of the mind. This is not a statement about reality. It is backward; the universe did not adjust for human life, human life evolved within an existing environment. Here is the puddle example There is a puddle that suddenly becomes self-aware. It looks at the hole it is sitting in and thinks, “Wow! This hole fits me perfectly. It must have been designed just for me.” Nope, the water adjusts to the hole just like we adjusted to our current environment on this planet. In addition; it is extremely arrogant of anyone to believe the entire universe was created just for humans.
Chap 5 Frank&Norm spend the vast majority of this chapter bashing science with regards to abiogenesis (how life began), the complexity of life and DNA. Yet they send no time attempting to demonstrate their hypothesis, “god did it”, to be true. This entire chapter is an argument from ignorance (god of the gaps) argument. As of right now we (humans) do not know how life began on our planet. That is the honest answer for everyone, even Christians. Yes, life forms are complex and so is DNA. We have scientist who are investigating DNA and learning more about it every day. But we still do not fully understand it. What we do know is that it is NOT a language (a means of one mind communicating information to another mind). It is a series of chemical and physical reactions. We (humans) understand these chemical reactions and what they do that is why it is often referred to as a “code.” Complexity does NOT require an intelligent creator. Frank&Norm make a statement that contradicts their own beliefs, “…by the Principle of uniformity, we assume that the world worked in the past just like it works today..” Really? We have absolutely no examples of verified miracles occurring in the world today, therefore the miracles mentioned in the bible most likely did not happen. They then say, “Logically, there are only two types of causes intelligent and non-intelligent (i.e. natural.) Here he is speaking of natural vs supernatural causes. We (humans) have absolutely no methods or mechanisms to investigate anything supernatural. Supernatural causes are just claims that are typically found to be natural causes as our knowledge and technology advances. Lighting is not caused by supernatural causes for instance. This is why “intelligent design” is ignored by scientists; because they can’t conduct repeatable & verifiable experiments on anything supernatural. It isn’t because there is some kind of vast conspiracy against the religious. If there is a supernatural intelligent designer it MUST be demonstrated to exist before you can posit it as a cause for anything.
Chap 6 Frank&Norm cover evolution. Their arguments are getting tiresome as they continue to repeat the same “god did it” solution for everything, which is simply wrong. Scientists investigate observable phenomena, create hypotheses, and then experiment with KNOWN causes. I will use an example given earlier in this book the Grand Canyon. We see the canyon and wonder how it came to be. Scientists posit a hypothesis that water + gravity + time lead to what we see today. We can DEMONSTRATE that water, gravity, & time exist! Every argument Frank&Norm suggest, which ends in “god did it”, is invalid because they MUST DEMONSTRATE that a god exists in order to prove their hypothesis correct. Otherwise we can insert anything we want and it must be accepted on the same basis. I can say that aliens, or leprechauns, or Cthulhu did it and it will be an equally valid explanation. As for evolution, even if I grant them that somehow all of the scientific research is incorrect (go research it yourselves) the honest answer would be “We (humans) don’t know why there is diversity of life on our planet.” Frank&Norm cannot demonstrate their god exist, therefor they don’t know their god actually exists. For intelligent design to be true you MUST demonstrate the intelligent entity who is the designer.
Chap 7 Objective/Absolute Morality (universal moral obligation) They call this a “Moral Law” and argue 1. Every law has a law giver, 2. There is a moral law, 3. Therefore, there is a moral law giver. All prescriptive laws have a law giver where as descriptive laws (laws of logic & mathematics as examples) do not require a law giver because they are simply descriptions of things that are consistent in reality. So premise 1 is not accurate unless Frank&Norm clarify. Premise 2 must be demonstrated to be true. Frank&Norm need to clearly define exactly what this “moral law” is; they cannot leave it in vague terms. Also, they MUST demonstrate the law giver exists (i.e. god). All morals are subjective. For example Is one human killing another morally wrong? The answer is “it depends.” Our (human) morals have evolved over time. One only needs to look at the bible to understand this fact. One simple example is slavery. The bible (god) sanctions slavery (exodus 21, Leviticus 25, 1 Peter 2, Colossians 3) and never renounces it. Yet today the majority of the world believes that owning another human being as property is immoral. Even today different cultures have different moral standards. Is killing someone for their sexual preference the morally correct thing to do? Morals are always subjective and always have been. But, humans understand what it feels like to be human. We understand pleasure and pain. We understand how we want to be treated and therefore understand how others feel (for the most part). We understand the benefits of making others feel good and the potential consequences of making others feel bad. This drives cooperation which has made us the most successful species on the planet; no supernatural entity required. No god required!
Chap 8 Frank&Norm start this chapter with this unverified claim, “…we can know many truths to a high degree of certainty. One of these truths is the existence and nature of God.” WRONG! None of the evidence provided so far in this book demonstrates that a god exists! Each of his earlier arguments requires this demonstration to prove that it is true (factually accurate). You can’t add together many failed claims and have it equal proof. Then they move on to attempt to use miracles as additional proof. As of today we do not have a single example of a verifiable miracle; we only have claims that miracles have happened. We (humans) have absolutely no way to investigate anything supernatural. Once again, Frank&Norm MUST demonstrate that miracles happen or else there argument is just yet another unverified claim which can be dismissed. All miracles written about in the bible fall into this same category; they are simply claims.
Chap 9-12 The majority of these chapters cover the “historicity” of Jesus and the bible being a historical document. I am going to reply to these chapters as a whole. The bible is NOT a history book. It was not written by historians using the methods of historians of that time. Yes the bible includes real places, some real people, and describes elements of the culture of the time. However, the same can be said for many fictions books (the Sherlock Holms stories for example). The bible cannot be considered to be eyewitness testimony either. There is nothing in the bible that validates the supernatural elements described within. There are some extra-biblical sources which speak of people where were “Christians” but this does not validate the truth of the supernatural claims. Then there is Flavius Josephus who was born after the death of Jesus. His most famous writing about Jesus is accepted as a forgery added to his text by the catholic church. The bible is a book of theology, not a book of history. Simply put, Frank&Norm must demonstrate that the claims made in the bible are factually accurate. No amount of circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove these claims to be true.
Chap 13 & 14 These chapters now assume Jesus was a real person and is the son of god, as well as god and the holy spirt being real. None of this was proved by the earlier parts of the book.

This book was just awful. Frank&Norm just make unverifiable claim after unverifiable claim. Their claims fail and yet they expect all of those failures to add up to a successfully proven argument for the existence of a god. There were so many logical fallacies and so many misleading statements about atheists used to create a “us vs. them” narrative. This book was obviously not written for skeptics, atheists or people who adhere to other religious beliefs because none of these people would find any of the information convincing. This type of book is written as Christian propaganda for Christian believers to bolster their ”faith".
Book makes very convincing arguments at different levels, both religious and scientific, in support of a “Prime Mover,” All-Powerful, intelligent, monotheistic Being, witnessed and recorded in reliable and honest ways by the Apostles. These and more are in support of the conclusion that it takes more convincing arguments to convince the present authors of the opposite- Natural Selection, Darwinism, etc.
However, some of the Authors’ arguments were unclear and therefore, less convincing. I am especially referring to their discussion of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the expanding Universe, etc, in short most of Chapter 3 The Great Surge. I did not follow and found myself searching Wikipedia to clarify some of the scientific concepts brought up by the authors with little help. Most of the remaining chapters, however, were very well done. The authors postulate most possible philosophical arguments that could have or have actually been laid against their premises, and their responses are very convincing. Logically, one can either believe the authors or not, depending if you “feel” like believing in convincing arguments about the existence of God, or not.
One other thing copyright 2004, book may benefit from some updated references by now (2018).
Overall, outstanding work. 5 stars.