God's Not Dead - the film has me pondering

I enjoyed the movie as entertainment tonight at my stepson's church but struggled with how ill prepared the student was left in the film (as heroic in his attempt to honor God as he was and how miraculously "Hollywood" equipped the student was with fancy videos, etc) and how all of a sudden so many (based upon the teacher's rationale for distrusting God) suddenly changed their minds in the film. I kept placing myself in the student's place and wondering if I would trust God to equip me as He seemed to.

I am not trying to stir up controversy here or discuss the film's merits (it tried to cover a lot and telescoped quite a bit too) but wondered - what Logos applet or book would you pull up or out if you were the student in this film and felt led to obey and honor God in the "pulpit" in front of your peers for 3 sessions as he did?

Could we rely upon Logos to assist us in reasoning with others and show God is not dead as the film proposed?

I know and believe the answer is yes - but ask you to join me in listing simple easy to pull up resources for where you might go to give a reason for your/our faith?

I would bring a few books or sections of books from

Paul Copan https://www.logos.com/product/27359/paul-copan-apologetics-collection and

Ray Comfort

https://www.logos.com/product/20498/scientific-facts-in-the-bible-100-reasons-to-believe-the-bible-is-supernatural-in-origin

https://www.logos.com/product/10172/ray-comfort-collection

for starters.

What would you all suggest as more concise more accessible and more reasonable/convincing please?

Its ok if you have not seen the film....if you have to defend your faith - what Logos resources (and yes Bible quotes) would you want at your fingertips if you could have them in a class of your peers and most of them initially doubting Thomas?

ps. yes I know Thomas demonstrated great faith more than once. Consider this secondary ? - if a student came to you and said "Can you help me defend my faith?" how would or could we all use Logos to assist him/her please? Was anyone else concerned when the Pastor in the church quoted Scripture but didn't seem to follow up with the student who clearly needed help in forming reasonable arguments against a biased atheist teacher? I know the Pastor has his own sidestory and merit in the overall film but I wanted to stand up and say to that screen - "Help that boy will ya Pastor?...don't let him walk away discouraged with just a couple of easily memorized by you Scriptures...at least offer to pray for him the precise moment he was stepping in front of his classmates or offer to go there!"

By the way, Newsboy Michael Tate and the others in the band, if you read this, I am glad you were used of God in the film to reach that poor girl with cancer in the story.....you were not just portrayed as rock stars singing songs....you were/are true believers...Glory to God...Jesus Lead On!"

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

William M. Harper

I would recommend some of Dr. Robert A. Morey's books, especially this one: https://www.logos.com/product/10532/the-new-atheism-and-the-erosion-of-freedom. Logos offers several other resources on " the New Atheism " as well. If you do a search on that topic on the Logos website you will find a good selection.

Kent

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716032#Comment_716032

Has not been updated in a while and Logos has added much but look here, New Bundle

Jack Caviness

What would you all suggest as more concise more accessible and more reasonable/convincing please?

I would look to Norman Geisler. Apologetics is his area of expertise. He is not always an easy read like Comfort, but I have more confidence in Geisler.

I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist

When Critics Ask

Alan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716082#Comment_716082

Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig.

https://www.logos.com/product/2844/reasonable-faith-christian-truth-and-apologetics

would be my number one choice.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716086#Comment_716086

Craig was a friend of one of my professors while I was an undergraduate, and I was blessed to be able to go out for breakfast with the man (and the rest of my class) a couple times.

He IS a molinist. But, he does a good job of picking his opponents apart.

Deacon Steve

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716087#Comment_716087

Sorry, not necessarily concise or simplified for a high school student unless they are really into science, but very helpful for those that teach them. Robert Spitzer's resource is about as up-to-date and compelling as you can find. You would need to do some work to make it accessible to them. Spitzer has a high school curriculum, videos included on the whole subject but not in Logos. This is my go-to resource when the science "zealots" start trumpeting around.

https://www.logos.com/product/50121/new-proofs-for-the-existence-of-god-contributions-of-contemporary-physics-and-philosophy

The preview on the product page has been truncated severely so I have pasted the TOC here.

Contents

Acknowledgments

Introduction

I. The Contemporary Theistic Scene

II. Why Are These Proofs New? A Brief History of the Five Approaches

III. The Rest of the Book

part one

Indications of Creation and Supernatural Design in Contemporary Big Bang Cosmology

Introduction to Part One

Chapter One: Indications of Creation in Big Bang Cosmology

Introduction

I. The Big Bang Theory

II. Can Science Indicate Creation?

III. Arguments for a Beginning of the Universe in Big Bang Cosmology

III.A. The Second Law of Thermodynamics

III.B. Why a Bouncing Universe Cannot Have Been Bouncing Forever

III.C. Space-Time Geometry Arguments for a Beginning of Time

III.D. Quantum Cosmology

III.E. The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem’s Boundary to Past Time

IV. Conclusion

V. Metaphysical Implications

Chapter Two: Indications of Supernatural Design in Contemporary Big Bang Cosmology

Introduction

I. Universal Constants

I.A. Constants of Space and Time

I.B. Energy Constants

I.C. Individuating Constants

I.D. Large-Scale and Fine-Structure Constants

II. The Extreme Improbability of Our Anthropic Universe

III. Many Universes or Supernatural Design?

Conclusion to Part One

Postscript to Part One: Inflationary Cosmology and the String Multiverse, by Bruce L. Gordon, Ph.D.

Introduction

I. All Inflationary Cosmologies Must Have a Beginning and a Transcendent Cause

I.A. String Cosmologies Entail a Beginning and a Transcendent Cause

I.A.1. A Primer on String Theory

I.A.2. Steinhardt-Turok Cyclic Ekpyrotic Universes Require a Beginning and a Transcendent Cause

I.A.3. Gasperini-Veneziano Pre-Big-Bang Scenarios Require a Beginning and a Transcendent Cause

I.B. Deflationary Intermezzo for Strings

II. A Preliminary Assessment of Inflationary Cosmology

III. All Inflationary and Non-Inflationary Cosmologies Appear to Require a Beginning and Transcendent Cause

IV. Inflation and Cosmological Fine-Tuning

V. Fine-Tuning and String Cosmology

VI. Conclusion

part two

Three Philosophical Proofs for the Existence of God

Introduction to Part Two: Methodological Presuppositions of Philosophical Proof: Reasonable and Responsible Belief

Chapter Three: A Metaphysical Argument for God’s Existence

Introduction

I. Step One: Proof of the Existence of at Least One Unconditioned Reality

I.A. Complete Disjunction Elucidating the Whole Range of Possibilities for All Reality

I.A.1. Definitions

I.A.2. Consequences of the Complete Disjunction

I.B. Proof That “Hypothesis F” Must Be False for Any Conditioned Reality

I.C. Proof That “Hypothesis ~F” Must Be False for Any Conditioned Reality

I.D. Proof That a Circular Set of Conditions Is False for Any Conditioned Reality

I.E. Conclusion: There Must Exist at Least One Unconditioned Reality in All Reality

I.F. Another Refutation of Hypothesis ~UR

II. Step Two: Proof That Unconditioned Reality Itself Is the Simplest Possible Reality

II.A. The Principle of Simplicity

II.B. Unconditioned Reality Itself Must Be the Simplest Possible Reality

III. Step Three: Proof of the Absolute Uniqueness of Unconditioned Reality Itself

IV. Step Four: Proof That Unconditioned Reality Itself Is Unrestricted

V. Step Five: Proof That the One Unconditioned Reality Is the Continuous Creator of All Else That Is

V.A. The Unique, Absolutely Simple, Unrestricted, Unconditioned Reality Itself Is the Creator of All Else That Is

V.B. The Creator Must Continuously Create All Else That Is Real

Conclusion

Chapter Four: A Lonerganian Proof for God’s Existence

Introduction

I. Definitions of “Understanding” and “Intelligibility”

II. Proof of the Existence of God

II.A. There Must Be at Least One Unconditioned Reality

II.B. An Unconditioned Reality Must Be Unrestricted Intelligibility

II.C. Unrestricted Intelligibility Must Be Unique—One and Only One

II.D. Unique, Unrestricted Intelligibility Must Be an Unrestricted Act of Understanding—Understanding Itself

II.E. All Other Intelligibility Besides the One Unrestricted Act of Understanding Must Be Restricted and Be a Thought Content of the One Unrestricted Act of Understanding

II.F. Conclusion to the Proof

III. The Mystery of Human Understanding: The Notion of Being

Chapter Five: Proof of a Creator of Past Time

Introduction

I. An Analytical Contradiction

II. An Ontological Explanation of Real Time

II.A. Description, Scientific Explanation, and Ontological Explanation

II.B. An Ontological Explanation of Space

II.C. Real Time

II.C.1. Existential Non-Coincidence

II.C.2. Real Time as a Non-Contemporaneous Distensive Manifold

II.C.3. Time as the Limiting Condition of Existence

II.C.4. The Succession of Time and the Asymmetry of Events

II.C.5. Manifestations of Real Time

III. Hilbert’s Prohibition of Actual Infinities

III.A. Three Kinds of Infinity

III.B. The Mathematical Prohibition of C-Infinities

IV. A Formal Argument Against the Infinity of Past Time in Any Changeable Universe

V. Proof of a Creator of Past Time Which Is Not Itself Conditioned by Time

Conclusion

Chapter Six: Methodological Considerations and the Impossibility of Disproving God

Introduction

I. Common Methodological Elements

I.A. Complete Disjunction Within Metaphysical Assertions

I.B. The Notion of “Infinity”

I.C. Causality

II. Three Approaches to the Notion of “God”

III. The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God

IV. The Tenuous Rationality of Atheism

part three

The Transcendentals: The Divine and Human Mysteries

Introduction to Part Three

Chapter Seven: The Divine Mystery: Five Transcendentals

Introduction

I. The Interrelationship Among Absolute Simplicity, Perfect Unity, and Unrestricted Understanding

II. The Ontological Status of Love, the Good, and the Beautiful

II.A. The Ontological Status of Love

II.B. The Ontological Status of the Good

II.C. The Ontological Status of the Beautiful

Conclusion

Chapter Eight: The Human Mystery: Five Yearnings for the Ultimate

Introduction

I. The Desire for Perfect Truth

II. The Desire for Perfect Love

III. The Desire for Perfect Justice/Goodness

IV. The Desire for Perfect Beauty

V. The Desire for Perfect Home

Conclusion to Part Three: The Divine and Human Mysteries

conclusion

Five Questions Toward the Unconditional Love of God

References

Index

John Fidel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716108#Comment_716108

I have found some of James White's Youtube videos, especially his debate with Bart Ehrman very helpful. He is a very skilled apologist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moHInA9fAsI

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716116#Comment_716116

I'm not much of a James White fan, but I think he did the best job against Erhman that I've seen so far. Even seemed to have him on his heels a bit. His point about "tenacity" is one that Bart avoids. I wonder if Bart could ever back off his position at this point or if he feels committed to it "come hell or high water".

Regarding textual variants and translational variations (MT vs. LXX, for instance), I happen to think that YHWH, in certain instances, has allowed and (who knows?) perhaps even inspired certain differences to get more mileage out of a given bit of Scripture. Regarding the pericope of the woman caught in adultery, I am convinced that it is supposed to be in the text now, regardless of whether it was in the autograph. There are numerous fulfillments of prophecy in that passage that effectively have to occur somewhere and that's they only place where they occur.

Kent

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716116#Comment_716116

I like White's tie in the video

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716108#Comment_716108

https://www.logos.com/product/50121/new-proofs-for-the-existence-of-god-contributions-of-contemporary-physics-and-philosophy

The preview on the product page has been truncated severely so I have pasted the TOC here.

Thank you for the link and the TOC. It is now sitting in my shopping cart.

Alan Charles Gielczyk

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716179#Comment_716179

Most apologetics try and meet the unbeliever on their turf. I think the best approach is represented by Bahnsen.

JoshInRI

I thank all of you for the great suggestions and replies. God will and does give us the words to say - of this I have no doubt. I just long to be ready and (no one chuckle) I hope my Logos is up and running and easily searched (choke, gasp, cough) for brief answers that convict and or convince when I need them.

The young college student got 3 sessions to deliver his proof that God exists....and seemed to do a lot of research without much help from anyone else in the film - but of course, God (at least thats how I saw it).

I thought it was maddening that the Pastor in the film didn't come alongside the student but he had "engine trouble" issues and seemed to be stuck in a rut. Could cite Scripture but didn't seem to be living out his job and life with conviction til much later in the film.

Bless us all as we stand in the widening gaps and testify so that Gods Kingdom is expanded even through people with bad memories like mine.

Glory to God...Jesus Lead On!

Deacon Steve

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716179#Comment_716179

https://www.logos.com/product/50121/new-proofs-for-the-existence-of-god-contributions-of-contemporary-physics-and-philosophy

The preview on the product page has been truncated severely so I have pasted the TOC here.

Thank you for the link and the TOC. It is now sitting in my shopping cart.

A couple of samples from the Introduction ...

Introduction

The last few years have seen several books championing agnosticism or atheism making their way into the popular press. These books leave most informed readers quite baffled, because they ignore the vast majority (if not the entirety) of the considerable evidence for theism provided by physics and philosophy during the last few decades. This evidence is capable of grounding reasonable and responsible belief in a super-intelligent, transcendent, creative power that stands at the origins of our universe or any hypothetically postulated multiverse. The main purpose of this book is to give a brief synopsis of this evidence to readers who are interested in exploring the strongest rational foundation for faith that has come to light in human history.

The great physicist Sir Arthur Eddington remarked in his classic work The Nature of the Physical World:

We all know that there are regions of the human spirit untrammeled by the world of physics. In the mystic sense of the creation around us, in the expression of art, in a yearning towards God, the soul grows upward and finds the fulfillment of something implanted in its nature. The sanction for this development is within us, a striving born with our consciousness or an Inner Light proceeding from a greater power than ours. Science can scarcely question this sanction, for the pursuit of science springs from a striving which the mind is impelled to follow, a questioning that will not be suppressed. Whether in the intellectual pursuits of science or in the mystical pursuits of the spirit, the light beckons ahead and the purpose surging in our nature responds.¹

Perhaps this light is responsible for the persistent rational pursuit of ultimate grounds and causation which has been frequently associated with God since the time of Plato² and Aristotle.³ Though there have been centuries of controversy about the legitimacy of these proofs (particularly from the late eighteenth to early twentieth centuries), contemporary developments in physics, philosophy, and mathematics have led to a rekindled interest and an expanded pursuit of them.⁴

In the twentieth century, David Hilbert (the father of finite mathematics) has given new probative force and depth to the argument for the intrinsic finitude of past time (implying a timeless Creator) in his article "On the Infinite."⁵ Quantum Theory has expanded the horizons of ontology by obliging it to contend with non-location and information fields, which, in their turn, have given new evidence for non-materialistic (information-like) dimensions of physical reality. The General Theory of Relativity has forced us to re-envision the universe as a dynamically integrated finite whole in contradistinction to Newton’s infinite universe of mass points in empty space. Big Bang cosmology has introduced the probability of the finitude of the observable universe and contemporary universal inflationary theory has shown the strong probability of an initial singularity, implying a causative power transcending universal space and time. When these and other discoveries are allowed to complement traditional proofs for the existence of God, they provide a remarkable rational foundation for the existence of a unique, unconditioned, unrestricted, absolutely simple, super-intelligent, continuous Creator of all else that is.

Deacon Steve

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716238#Comment_716238

I. The Contemporary Theistic Scene

Parts of this book could not have been written before 2003 when Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin established the requirement for a singularity in all inflationary model universes,⁶ and when the data of the MAP satellite helped to verify the inflationary universe and the age of the universe—13.7 billion years; other parts could not have been written before 1989 when Roger Penrose calculated the odds against an anthropic universe compatible with the second law of thermodynamics emerging from the big bang.⁷ The classical Big Bang model could not have been addressed before 1964 when evidence indicated the likelihood of finite space and time in our observable universe, and quantum cosmology could not have been addressed prior to that time.

These developments not only have an important effect on Chapters 1 and 2 of this book, but also on the philosophical proofs given in Chapters 3–5, because they give greater credence to classical and medieval philosophical ideas that lost credibility during the era of Newtonian mechanics (which affected philosophy all the way through the early twentieth century). Today, concepts like "ontological simplicity," "conditioned and unconditioned realities," and "formal cause" (particularly in the "information fields" intrinsic to quantum fields) enjoy a veracity and significance beyond that of their classical and medieval origins. These discoveries provide experimentally verifiable examples of concepts used to prove the existence of God in Chapters 3–5.

In view of this, I here offer my rendition of a "state-of-the-art" formulation of the proofs. I hope to provide a staging area to assemble the work of great astrophysicists, cosmologists, and philosophers who have contributed so much to this field, and to bring their thoughts together in a single, comprehensive volume.

II. Why Are These Proofs New? A Brief History of the Five Approaches

Significant updates in rational approaches to God have been achieved in five major areas over the last seventy years:

1) evidence from physics and cosmology about an initial singularity (implying a creation event transcending universal space-time asymmetry—Chapter 1),

2) evidence of the extremely high improbability of an anthropic universe (one that will allow the emergence of any life form), implying the possibility of supernatural design (Chapter 2),

3) development of the notions, and corroboration of the reality, of causation and simplicity in quantum theory and cosmology, which can be applied to what was traditionally conceived as the "uncaused Cause argument" (Chapter 3),

4) an ontological grounding for Bernard Lonergan’s proof for the existence of God in Insight: A Study of Human Understanding (Chapter 4), and

5) contemporary developments in the ontological explanation of time and the Hilbertian prohibition of "infinities hypothesized within finite structures," which has led to a credible contemporary formulation of the long-discarded proof of the impossibility of infinite past time (Chapter 5).

Deacon Steve

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716239#Comment_716239

Chapter 1 begins with a brief account of the general elements of classical Big Bang cosmology, and shows how those combined elements ground the contemporary position that our observable universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old and 13.7 billion light years in radius (from its theoretical originative center). The chapter then gives a brief account of developments in the contemporary Big Bang model that allow for an initial state that may be conceived in terms of quantum cosmology and/or string theory, and universal inflation (a hyper-accelerating phase of expansion in the early universe, seemingly caused by "vacuum energy" or "dark energy").

The classical Big Bang model seemed to indicate a beginning of the universe at a Hawking-Penrose singularity, but this was mitigated by the contemporary Big Bang model, which opened up the possibility of an early quantum cosmological era and an inflationary dynamic (allowing our universe to be but one amidst a multiplicity of possible universes within a theoretical multiverse). This mitigating view was itself subsequently mitigated by the discovery of Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin that every inflationary model universe (and/or multiverse) must have a beginning. Since this indicates an edge of time (prior to which there is no time), the conclusions of Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin point strongly to a creation of the universe (from no previously existing physical matter-energy). The cause of such a creation would then have to transcend our universe (and any multiverse in which it may be situated).

Deacon Steve

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716240#Comment_716240

Chapter 2 considers the so-called teleological argument (the argument from design) from the vantage point of contemporary Big Bang cosmology. Prior to the time of Newton, the argument from design had an intuitive appeal because it was grounded in the idea that the number of higher-order complexes (producing higher-order activities such as self-motion, eyesight, intelligence, etc.) which could be produced by the interaction of simpler constituents is extremely remote by comparison to the number of non-productive combinations of those simpler constituents. From the vantage point of both physics and probability theory, this is not an erroneous idea.

However, when Newton theorized that space, time, and mass points were infinite (and his theories were virtually dogmatically accepted), philosophers began to reason that even though "higher-order complexes giving rise to higher-order activities" were extremely improbable, literally any highly improbable event could occur in an infinite amount of time, in an infinite amount of space, with an infinite amount of mass. Once an infinite number of possibilities is inserted into the probability equations, improbability disappears—and literally anything becomes possible. Thus, the teleological argument slipped from the horizon for nearly 270 years.

But then came two remarkable developments in cosmology: (1) the classical and then later contemporary models of Big Bang cosmology, and (2) the discovery of additional universal constants. (A universal constant is a fixed quantity that mathematically governs the fundamental equations of physics throughout the observable universe during its duration, such as the speed of light constant, Planck’s constant, the gravitational constant, weak force constant, strong force constant, mass of a proton, mass of an electron, charge of an electron/proton, etc.)

As noted above, Big Bang cosmology put an end to the Newtonian assumptions of infinite time and mass in our observable universe. Now the universe was thought to be only 13.7 billion years old and to have 10⁵³ kg of visible mass, and a finite amount of dark matter and vacuum (dark) energy. It was all quite finite, and that meant that the probability equations would once again have to be taken seriously. When this eventuality was combined with the discovery of additional universal constants, a host of exceedingly improbable "cosmic coincidences" were discovered.

Essentially, our universe should not be anthropic (capable of sustaining any kind of life form), because the range of anthropic values for our universe’s constants is exceedingly small by comparison to the immense range of non-anthropic values. This meant that a random occurrence of the anthropic values of our universe’s constants is so remote as to be virtually impossible. As a result, physicists began to advocate that it might be just as reasonable, if not more reasonable, to believe in a super-Intellect "setting the values of the constants at the inception of the universe," as to believe in their random occurrence. Even persistent atheists like Fred Hoyle changed their minds and openly declared their belief in such a "super-Intellect."

Chapter 2 will set out seven of these cosmological coincidences so that readers might be able to verify for themselves the unbelievably high improbability of an anthropic universe emerging from the big bang by pure chance. Notice that we are not talking about the emergence of life as we know it, but about the very conditions necessary for the possibility of any life form. It is this universality that makes the teleological argument more powerful than it ever could have been in any previous age.

I am not responsible for the research set out in Chapters 1 and 2, and so I am deeply indebted to the fine work of Roger Penrose, Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, Alexander Vilenkin, Brandon Carter, Walter Bradley, Fred Hoyle, Paul Davies, and many others whose insight and research have contributed so much to unveiling the mystery behind our anthropic universe.

I include a Postscript to Chapters 1 and 2 written by Dr. Bruce Gordon, who analyzes and criticizes some recent attempts by physicists to wriggle out of the preponderance of evidence for intelligent, transcendent, universal design. His incisive response to Steinhardt’s and Turok’s cyclic ekpyrotic hypothesis, Gasperini’s and Veneziano’s string perturbative vacuum phase within inflationary cosmology, and Susskind’s, Polchinski’s, Bousso’s, and Linde’s inflationary string landscape theory reveals the strength and probative force of the conclusion that our universe had its origin in an intelligent transcendent cause. He concludes with the words of the string landscape theory’s key proponent, Leonard Susskind, who worries out loud that if his theory proves to be inconsistent, physicists will be left without any alternative to intelligent design.

Lonnie Spencer

The weakness of apologetics is that just because I can convince someone in their head that there is a God, it doesn't mean their heart will automatically follow.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716243#Comment_716243

The weakness of apologetics is that just because I can convince someone in their head that there is a God, it doesn't mean their heart will automatically follow.

Well said. The real work is done by the Holy Spirit.

David Thomas

Several good apologists have been referenced and I am glad that their perspectives are available to the Bride of Christ and those who are searching with objective minds.

While I believe that every believer needs to be convinced in his own mind of the hope that we have, I do not believe each believer needs to possess the apologetic skills to confront every antagonist. I learned long ago that I cannot be an expert in every discipline and sometimes I just need to know enough to know which expert I will trust.

Just because I take certain medicines that have been prescribed for me does not mean that I need to research the biochemistry of each one and be able to defend its consumption. Sometimes I know just enough to trust my physician and take what he recommends.

In theology I often know just enough to admit that I am in the same camp with [name your expert] and that he has done the research to satisfy my need for "certainty."

I don't ever want brothers and sisters in Christ to be shamed into silence just because they do not have a well reasoned apologetic for all academic disciplines.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716108#Comment_716108

The problem for apologists who want to assign the Big Bang to YHWH, apart from the simple fact that it isn't what B'rei'shiytth describes, is the recent study which states that the physics and cosmological evidence has never pointed to a Big Bang. The "breakdown" of the math as one approaches the supposed singularity occurs because things never actually got that far. Instead, according to the theory, the universe doesn't have evidence of a beginning because, according to the math, it never had one. The proponents of this new theory claim it makes better sense of a number of weak points in the long-standing and virtually coronated Big Bang theory.

That's kind of the problem with saddling oneself (along with one's theology) to scientific theories. Science rarely stands still, which is, oddly enough, its strength. So long, Kalam cosmological argument! So long, William Lane Craig! But, of course, not so fast, right? WLC won't be going anywhere. Just like with the Great Disappointment, he'll just reset, pretend to recalibrate, and come out with another "conclusion, therefore premise" argument. I doubt Christian apologetics will ever comprehend the inherent weakness in such arguments, because, obviously, they are right and so they can't be wrong!

I think the real shocker will come when they ultimately recognize that YHWH isn't a fan of that kind of self-affirming nonsense.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716244#Comment_716244

The weakness of apologetics is that just because I can convince someone in their head that there is a God, it doesn't mean their heart will automatically follow.

Well said. The real work is done by the Holy Spirit.

Bad said! The real work is done by the Holy Spirit, yes, but if the person is not willing to obey, then it doesn't matter if they believe the Gospel or not. It will happen onto them like the Jews "many of them believed, but wouldn't confess Christ because they loved more the glory that came from men than the glory that came from God. It all boils down to the hearts of the people and how receptive they are to the calling of the Word ---- unless, of course, you're a Calvinist..."come on be saved whether you like it or not there's nothing you can do about it, Forget about your free will..." LOL

The only good lesson the movie had, was that we all need to be prepared to contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints! The rest was all pure entertainment mixed with some theological bias.

I may actually return some of my March madness purchases to get that Paul Cophan collection on apologetics (I hope I got his name right). When God goes to Starbucks seems like a nice title to read and learn from it...or I may just call my sales rep and see what kind of deal she/he can cut me.

DAL

Kent

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716246#Comment_716246

The problem for apologists who want to assign the Big Bang to YHWH, apart from the simple fact that it isn't what B'rei'shiytth describes, is the recent study which states that the physics and cosmological evidence has never pointed to a Big Bang. The "breakdown" of the math as one approaches the supposed singularity occurs because things never actually got that far. Instead, according to the theory, the universe doesn't have evidence of a beginning because, according to the math, it never had one. The proponents of this new theory claim it makes better sense of a number of weak points in the long-standing and virtually coronated Big Bang theory.

DP are you proposing a static and eternal universe, which the second law of thermodynamics will contradict? The Scripture talks of a void and anyway you translate it, it means nothingness.

Yes I agree that the math fails when taken to it's conclusion (Einstein divided by 0 in his relative theory work and there has not been anyone who has found a workaround for it).

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716257#Comment_716257

Actually, I'm not proposing anything. This is the study I am referencing. As I stated, it's just a theory. Might be wrong...but none of this stuff, one way or the other, has anything to do with the Bible. I personally think there is a high likelihood that YHWH created the universe with mathematical laws deliberately suggesting a "truth" divergent from what He described in B'rei'shiytth. Why? To test, as He always says He will do, whether we will accept what He said or revert to plumbing the creation for the "real" story.

For those interested, this is the paper that presents the math. Note the abstract and the conclusion.

steve clark

Could we rely upon Logos to assist us in reasoning with others and show God is not dead as the film proposed?

The Gospel is all that is needed (pick a translation, there are several good ones in Logos or many other free apps with free good translations).

i don't believe that it takes the Gospel + anything else, the Gospel is the Power of God.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716272#Comment_716272

Could we rely upon Logos to assist us in reasoning with others and show God is not dead as the film proposed?

The Gospel is all that is needed (pick a translation, there are several good ones in Logos or many other free apps with free good translations).

i don't believe that it takes the Gospel + anything else, the Gospel is the Power of God.

Now, that, Sir, is WELL SAID!

DAL

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716243#Comment_716243

The weakness of apologetics is that just because I can convince someone in their head that there is a God, it doesn't mean their heart will automatically follow.

Josh McDowell illustrated this truth long ago in Evidence that Demands a Verdict. After an evolutionary professor admitted that Josh had demolished all his best arguments, he still refused to admit the existence of God because that would have been an admission of responsibility to his Creator. And that was the very thing he refused to do. (Quoting from memory of something I read more than 30 years ago. Believe I have the thrust of the exchange even if a bit fuzzy on the details).

For a great many people the problem is not intellectual but volitional. Many who see the evidence for the existence of God will refuse to acknowledge Him from a rebellious nature. I personally tried very had to believe in evolution for that very reason. Romans 5:8 changed that more than 40 years ago.

Saw this after I posted the above:

The Gospel is all that is needed (pick a translation, there are several good ones in Logos or many other free apps with free good translations).

i don't believe that it takes the Gospel + anything else, the Gospel is the Power of God.

That would be my reference to Romans 5:8 above. It was not intellectual assent that gripped me, but the power of God's Word. The intellectual arguments are nice to know for one's own confidence, but don't expect them to win over a determined atheist. His/her problem most likely lies deep within the will, not in the mind.

Nord Zootman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716307#Comment_716307

That would be my reference to Romans 5:8 above. It was not intellectual assent that gripped me, but the power of God's Word. The intellectual arguments are nice to know for one's own confidence, but don't expect them to win over a determined atheist. His/her problem most likely lies deep within the will, not in the mind.

[Y]

Deacon Steve

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716332#Comment_716332

Just as I like using Logos, I like apologetics and music, and math, and logic, and astronomy, and rhetoric, and logic, and art, and literature, and philosophy, and law, and human beings and all the things in God's creation. Of course, God's revealed Word. I'm not good at any of them. But they help me understand more about Him.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716332#Comment_716332

Looks like we've successfully moved ChristianDiscourse back home.

The problem with proofs of God, is the use of the upper-case 'G'. Given the limits of humans, a non-human always has X% probability.

And the issue is highlighted in both the OT and NT. Which non-human?

Returning to Logos, the key data is the basis for the validity of the texts. And this is Logos' weakest area. Tov anyone?

steve clark

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716347#Comment_716347

God is NOT dead

Rev 22:12-13 “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

Rev 1:17-18 And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716553#Comment_716553

I've not read this thread as it was clear from the title it belonged on ChristianDiscourse ... but I accidently opened to the last entry read the first line and have a request. If you are going to ignore the guidelines, let me know if you decide to discuss something interesting like "does the concept of dead apply to God? and if so, how?

I've now glanced through the thread and offer a partial apology. The portion on apologetic resources definitively belongs here - the remainder belongs on Christian Discourse. As for the topic of does the concept of death apply to God, I would note that God became incarnate, took on the nature of man, in order to die.

Steve, your post did not offend me ... it merely implied that the thread had reached a point of little or no contact with the purpose of the forums ... and a glance up the page from your post seemed to confirm that view. I needed to see the preceding page before the thread was on topic.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716557#Comment_716557

"does the concept of dead apply to God? and if so, how? (I'd argue the concept doesn't apply).

Jn. 19:30 [:^)]

I know...you meant the other God.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716257#Comment_716257

The Scripture talks of a void and anyway you translate it, it means nothingness.

Where is this nothingness void mentioned?

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716557#Comment_716557

I've not read this thread as it was clear from the title it belonged on ChristianDiscourse

Then perhaps you should have read Josh's request for Logos resources before you begin to criticize his thread.

steve clark

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716557#Comment_716557

Hi MJ,

but I accidently opened to the last entry read the first line and have a request.

sorry if my post offended you. (as my post was obviously the last one before you posted)

If you are going to ignore the guidelines,

As Jack mentioned, you probably missed Josh's point in his OP. From what i have seen in this thread there doesn't seem to be a heated argument here. i believe that helping others find scripture is directly related to Logos and its use. It is a little scary to me if we become too politically correct here on the forum that we may not be able to speak about the Gospel freely. i beseech you to have mercy on us poor sinners.
May our LORD bless you and protect you and use you!

let me know if you decide to discuss something interesting like "does the concept of dead apply to God?

Ahh but it does. That is the Gospel, Jesus died and on the 3rd day He arose. How does that not apply since Jesus was God and He did die. Something related to the thread topic was how Paul approached the Philosophers of his time on Mars Hill (found in the book of Acts). [So Josh you might want to use Logos to investigate that perspective as it does directly relate to the your question].

Love ya'll in Christ Jesus,

steve

Cynthia in Florida

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716082#Comment_716082

What would you all suggest as more concise more accessible and more reasonable/convincing please?

I would look to Norman Geisler. Apologetics is his area of expertise. He is not always an easy read like Comfort, but I have more confidence in Geisler.

I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist

When Critics Ask

I completely agree with this. I am currently going through IDHEA with 12 high schoolers (there is a high school curriculum and dvd options available that I am also doing with them, and they love it. 95% of what the college student said in the film you can find in this book.

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716767#Comment_716767

95% of what the college student said in the film you can find in this book.

Maybe the script writer had read the book.

Deacon Steve

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716557#Comment_716557

Steve, your post did not offend me ... it merely implied that the thread had reached a point of little or no contact with the purpose of the forums ... and a glance up the page from your post seemed to confirm that view. I needed to see the preceding page before the thread was on topic.

Sorry about that MJ. And no explanation on your part is required, at least by me. I had just posted excerpts from the resource I thought would be helpful to the OP. I didn't realize that the content thereof would be controversial. I think David Paul had some comments about it.

[:S]

Deacon Steve

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716784#Comment_716784

... on another note...

I will be very careful next time before I post a sample from a resource for the benefit of another forum member. Other than the TOC, the two very introductory samples have seemed to stir up all manner of disagreement. That was not my intention. What I had provided is like reading the back cover of a book.

The resource I mentioned is a valuable tool in regard to the question proposed. That is why I posted the TOC and the samples. It requires thinking and reflection and research. Not a flippant response based on samples as some have done.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716784#Comment_716784

I had just posted excerpts from the resource I thought would be helpful to the OP. I didn't realize that the content thereof would be controversial.

Steve ... NoLastName - your post was one the first page - I hadn't even seen it and if you've been on the forums for any length of time you'll know I have never objected to providing quotes from resources, It's illogical or bigoted personal opinion that is off top that eventually gets my goat.

Caution this is NOT describing you Steve.... Clark

I spend too much time on the web - think about the sites that most often use proof texts with multi-sized fonts and multiple colors ... often with little white space. What style of thought and usefulness does that bring to mind? So why am I familiar with them? Its a visual clue of a good site for finding samples of fallacies. And, yes, a few sites disappoint - despite their visual impact they have something useful to say.

DAL

ps. yes I know Thomas demonstrated great faith more than once.

Who in the world is Thomas? There was nobody named Thomas in the film. The kid's name was Josh. Anyway, as Dan Story said in one of his apoligetics books: "Remember, Gospel first, Apologetics second."

DAL

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716553#Comment_716553

Rev 1:17-18 And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.

[:D] That is beautiful no matter what colour and font you type it in. [:D]

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/718396#Comment_718396

ps. yes I know Thomas demonstrated great faith more than once.

Who in the world is Thomas? There was nobody named Thomas in the film

He was referring to "doubting" Thomas (the Thomas mentioned in the Gospels), which you can tell from context; see the sentence right before this one you quoted in Josh's post.

JoshInRI

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/718433#Comment_718433

Thanks Rosie.