God's Not Dead - the film has me pondering

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

Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig.

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

would be my number one choice.

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

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.

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).

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 said:

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. 

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.

David Paul said:

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).

JoshInRI said:

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.

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. 

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 said:

"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.

Jack Caviness said:

JoshInRI said:

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.

MJ. Smith said:

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]

steve clark said:

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]