Case for a Creator

Rithkil

Rithkil

New Member
I got the link for the book, Case for a Creator. It's at http://www.ccn.tv/programming/event/evt_26sep04.htm

You can buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec....=glance

Here is the movie with 1 in 10 to the 215th power number at http://www.christianitytoday.com/conferences/events/2004/40926.html

You can buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec....=glance

Another link at http://home.messiah.edu/~barrett/facts.htm

These guys can explain it better than I can since I am not a astronomer or proffesional scientist. Enjoy.

No debating in these forums please or tell your beliefs. Just say what you thought about it or give another link.
 
Ok, just asking. I wanted to make sure you were familiar with him.

Since you are, I would like to point you to the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/strobel.shtml

http://www.infidels.org/library....o.shtml

They are critques of Strobel's works.

Read them and you will understand why I don't put much stock in Strobel's writings.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Lee Strobel, in his introduction to The Case for Faith, termed his eight Objections as "The Big Eight" conundrums of the Christian faith. Although I can think of other "conundrums," I have to agree that Strobel did pick a good set of eight. His "The Big Eight" conundrums are in fact many of the questions that I had asked myself many times. And, as I said earlier, Strobel generally did do a good job of introducing the Objections, and explaining why so many people have such great difficulties with them. In his conclusion, he concedes that perhaps not every reader would be convinced by every argument he presented. But he seems to hope that most readers will be swayed by at least a fair number of his arguments. So his final argument is that even if you can't find a satisfying answer to every question you have, you should base your faith on that which you do feel is valid. He says you should have faith that those questions that you do have left will eventually be answered in the fullness of time. In my own spiritual quest, I have tried to do just that. I have tried to base some level of faith on the answers that I do feel are valid. But the more I contemplate each of the conundrums, or objections, I find less and less of the Christian answers valid. For every single objection Strobel raised, and tried to answer, I found the answers to be weak at best, and often just flat-out preposterous. I am forced to conclude that Strobel presented very little case for faith. Perhaps, he actually provided a case against faith.
Click to expand...
-Paul Doland
 
If you don't like that, watch the movie. Or I will get more links to other books. Note: The link is faulty, not the right book. The book I'm talking about is Case for a Creator. Maybe you can find somebody who's mad at that book.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Lee Strobel, in his introduction to The Case for Faith, termed his eight Objections as "The Big Eight" conundrums of the Christian faith. Although I can think of other "conundrums," I have to agree that Strobel did pick a good set of eight. His "The Big Eight" conundrums are in fact many of the questions that I had asked myself many times. And, as I said earlier, Strobel generally did do a good job of introducing the Objections, and explaining why so many people have such great difficulties with them. In his conclusion, he concedes that perhaps not every reader would be convinced by every argument he presented. But he seems to hope that most readers will be swayed by at least a fair number of his arguments. So his final argument is that even if you can't find a satisfying answer to every question you have, you should base your faith on that which you do feel is valid. He says you should have faith that those questions that you do have left will eventually be answered in the fullness of time. In my own spiritual quest, I have tried to do just that. I have tried to base some level of faith on the answers that I do feel are valid. But the more I contemplate each of the conundrums, or objections, I find less and less of the Christian answers valid. For every single objection Strobel raised, and tried to answer, I found the answers to be weak at best, and often just flat-out preposterous. I am forced to conclude that Strobel presented very little case for faith. Perhaps, he actually provided a case against faith.
Click to expand...

This is one man's belief who I assume is altogether against Christian beliefs. I would take more than one opinion, that's just me.
 
I have not read all the books that they criticize. I cannot assume they are right or wrong for all of them. Did you check out my link?
 
Yes, I've looked at your links. Quite a bit of info.

Would you believe me if I told you that I have looked into many of these things before and have found them lacking?
 
Lacking...and? I would believe you. You seem completely believeable. The links however do not. I am still trying to understand the SPECIFICS that they mention but never talk about. They don't have and DETAILS.
 
Really? I thought Lowder did a good job of going point by point in Strobel's book.

There's a lot of info there Rith, take the time to actually read it.
 
LOL, Rith, why in the world did you include this:

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
Here is the movie with the one chance in 10 to the 215th power at ]http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/vic_stenger/ross.html
Click to expand...
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/vic_stenger/ross.html[/quote


That review was on the internet infidels site and includes this tidbit:

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The argument for the existence of a personal Creator based on arguments from probability and coincidence are no more valid than William Paley's divine watchmaker. They are simply the latest coat of varnish on the long-decrepit argument from design. It is too bad that discussions of this sort cannot be done with an honest presentation of the facts unfettered by the need to conform to the traditional prejudices of one particular religious system. This book by High Ross does great damage to the need for an open, non-dogmatic discussion of the issues. As a PhD physicist and astronomer, he does not merit the benefit of the doubt that he is writing from a position of ignorance.
Click to expand...

I think you just shot yourself in the foot.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Whoa, hang on. Why is it faulty now?

It's not faulty at all! Read it, it's right on the mark.
Click to expand...

I said faulty LINK. You think I'm talking about what the person wrote. I never said that's faulty. I don't agree with it, but it could be factual to some extent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top