I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist

cover

I finally finished I don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. I was slow at reading the full book only because there was so much to provoke thought, especially in the first half of the book.

Essentially, IDHEFTBAA (pardon the abbreviation; it’s a long title) gives a step-by-step apologetics approach to Christianity, all the while contrasting it to the corresponding atheist position. While authors Norman Geisler and Frank Turek don’t score a bulls-eye on each proof they offer, by the end of the book it’s clear that quibbling with them on any given point will be futile. The atheistic viewpoint of the world requires a much greater leap of faith than the one Christians have to make.

The book comes with a detailed outline; a shortened version can be summarized this way:

– Truth exists; things that are contrary to truth are false;
– The universe was created;
– Something greater than the universe created it;
– Based on cosmological and teleological evidence, God must exist.
– If God exists, miracles are possible.
– If miracles exist, God performed them for a purpose;
– The New Testamant is historically reliable;
– The New Testament says Jesus claims to be God;
– Miracles confirm that Jesus’s claim is confirmed by God;
– Jesus taught that Bible is the Word of God.

In this short review, it’s not possible to cover each of those points in sufficient detail (after all, that’s why Geisler and Turek wrote a book!), but the authors provide more than ample evidence for each of these points.

Why would God make himself known this way? If God appeared in front of you and said, “Believe in Me,” and then created a mountain in front of you, whould you believe? Of course you would… but would you believe of your own free will, or were you intimidated? God gives us the freedom to reject Him, but enough evidence to choose Him.

The first half of the book lays out the groundwork for the belief that a single, theistic God exists as the creator of the universe. Beginning with Albert Einstein’s “irritating” discovery that the universe had a beginning, the authors point out if space and time had a beginning, then whatever created it existed outside of space and time. An infinite, timeless being, according to our own definitions of time and space. In science, every effect has a cause – something happens because something made it happen. What made the universe happen?

Opposing viewpoints to this argument might include, “it spontaneously happened.” If so, what else in science spontaneously happens with no cause whatsoever? Based on the Law of Causality, everything in science has a cause. So what caused the universe?

From there, the authors offer proof that the universe was designed; every watch requires a watchmaker. If you find a Rolex on the ground, you don’t assume it created itself over millions of years; the design is too complex. Yet the universe is infinitely more complex.

The chapters on God’s miracles are every bit as thought-provoking; the authors quote not only Christian sources, but anti-Christian sources to see what they say about the life of Jesus, concluding that the miracles He performed are substantially better documented than anything things else we have from that time period. Thousands of manuscripts document the life of Jesus, where only a few dozen exist at most for other historical figures such as Plato that we accept as historically accurate.

And the people who wrote the first manuscripts had no reason to embellish – they received no earthly reward. In fact, they were sytematically persecuted and killed for their views. They had every reason to lie and recant, yet they maintained unto death that Jesus was the Messiah. Why would they do that unless they had evidence and truly believed themselves?

The book is over 400 pages, well documented with external sources (many of them from atheists). Until I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, I had never read a Christian apologetics book, and found this one fascinating, a step-by-step logical deduction that Jesus was the Messiah. If you wish to refute the authors, you’ll probably find that they have already addressed your question.

Highly recommended, very thought provoking with logical progression, yet easy to read. You may not agree with the authors by the time you finish the book, but with the evidence and logic laid out in front of you, you’ll be well-aware that you are choosing not to believe, and the evidence for God is much stronger than the evidence against God. Read it and see.

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist

  1. The following is, perhaps, a few thoughts that shall help in understanding how it is that those who teach the concept of evolution are wrong. The basis of their understanding is flawed. Check blogspot.

    THE FOLLOWING WORK CONTAINS A MASS/FREQUENCY CHANGE CONCEPT THAT SOLVES THE QUESTION AS TO WHY MASS MOVES AT ALL. IT ALSO CLARIFIES WHY OUR WORLD IS ONE OF PRESENT TIME ONLY, WITH THERE BEING NO POSSIBILITY OF TIME TRAVEL TO EITHER THE PAST OR FUTURE.

    THE PROBLEM AND REPAIR OF RELATIVITY

    (C) 2004, Duane Ertle

    In order to introduce the problem, I am going to quote a few sentences from a book “The Universe and Dr. Einstein,” by Lincoln Barnett, published in 1960 by Mentor Books. The quotes are from pages 61 and 63 respectively.

    The first concept involves that of mass.
    “In its popular sense, mass is just another word for weight. But used by the physicist, it denotes a rather different and more fundamental property of matter: namely, resistance to a change of motion. A greater force is necessary to move or stop a freight car than a velocipede; the freight car resists a change in its motion more stubbornly than the velocipede because it has greater mass. … But Relativity asserts that the mass of a moving body is by no means constant, but increases with its velocity relative to an observer. In short, energy has mass!”

    Next, we need to look at the reason for this belief.
    “By further deduction from his principle of Relativity of mass, Einstein arrived at a conclusion of incalculable importance to the world. His train of reasoning ran somewhat as follows: since the mass of a moving body increases as its motion increases, and since motion is a form of energy (kinetic energy), then the increased mass of a moving body comes from its increased energy. …”

    Now I am going to quote a paragraph from “The Bones of Time,” copyrighted in 1978 by Duane Ertle, it is from the chapter “Flexible Time.”
    “The reason a fast moving mass is so difficult to stop, or have a direction change in, is due to its becoming frozen in a linear manner so energy cannot pass through its total volume as happens when it is at rest. When a mass moves at one-hundred thousand miles a second, the energy existent and having potential movement at right angles to its direction of travel could be at most a distance of eighty-six thousand miles a second. When moving at the speed of light minus two feet per second, the potential energy existent at right angles to its forward motion would only be two feet in one second. At the speed of light the mass would convert from being a three-dimensional object and would become a single beam of high energy photons streaking through space, all existing in only one dimension. Obviously there would be zero energy potential at right angles to the direction of travel.”

    Moving mass does not acquire additional mass as it moves. Atomic matter is composed of waveform. As electromagnetic energy (a wave) has differing energy values so, also, does mass at different speeds have an overall differing waveform. The waveform is derived from the moving mass itself, as energy at right angles to direction of travel decreases in line density with movement, and transfers a proportional amount of that frequency toward the direction of travel. In this sense greater mass is being added to the forward motion of the mass at the expense of the energy/mass at right angles to it.

    There is an expression that deals with frequency density and an increase of energy as the lines of frequency increase. The expression in question says that E=hf. The energy of an electromagnetic wave is equal to that of a very small numerical constant times the frequency of the wave. The greater the frequency of the wave, the more energy the electromagnetic wave would have. Radio waves may have very long peak-to-peak distances of thousands of meters, while cosmic radiation is able to have its frequency so compressed that it acts as dimensional mass, and there may be trillions of frequencies, or waves within a single meter. Now consider how the frequency at right angles to direction of movement changes from having great potential in those directions, toward having less, thus giving up mass/energy potential. Energy, in form of greater frequency, converts to an overall change of mass, or as some would say, “… resistance to a change of motion.”

    The concept of E=hf is an equation that works for three different elements of nature:

    1. E=hf, is an equation that describes why electromagnetic energy has greater and lesser energy values. Radio waves have very little energy value, while gamma and cosmic radiation have a great deal. And it all is dependent upon wave frequency and the density of that wave in a particular space.

    2. mk=hf, (mass kinetic energy, equals hf) describes why mass shrinks to an observer as it moves. Because mass is composed of electromagnetic energy, it has the same wave values as electromagnetic energy, but in a very condensed manner. Electromagnetic energy remains in three-dimensional space in form of standing waves, yet having the same linear value of 186,000 mps all the while. Like a runner on a racetrack traveling all the while at that great speed. The same distance is traveled, just not in a straight line. As long as the velocity value within mass maintains the value of “c” it does not matter how small the “race track” becomes.

    The, mk=hf, value demonstrates that the shrinkage of a moving mass is constant with frequency change. There are no sudden changes in mass/energy values. It also explains why the energy transfer takes place as frequency converts at right angles to that of forward motion. Just as sound waves have greater frequency with greater mass speed (thus the lines of frequency shrink, or become compressed) so, also, mass in the direction of travel shrinks in proportion to a greater or lesser internal frequency or energy values.

    3. c=hf, is that for the relationship of a gravitational field and its frequency. It is possible that a “graviton,” a single gravitational wave, has the same frequency as all other gravitational waves, no matter where they form; and what we consider as field of gravity has to do with quantity and not quality. Even though it might be either way, at present it appears that a gravitational field is formed of a quantity of waves (a greater multitude of waves all exactly the same no matter where in earth they formed) and not their frequency; although the c=hf concept would be valid in either sense.

    Dr. Einstein understood moving mass from the perspective of how it related directly to that of energy – and it worked for him. He arrived at E=mc2! But the same result is able to be found by understanding that mass is composed of waves, and the moving mass undergoes a change from being greater in mass in three dimensions toward that of becoming greater in waveform in one direction and less in the other two dimensions.

    In order that the reader may understand the thinking of today concerning the potential ramification of compounding mass, I am going to quote a paragraph found in a book entitled “Asimov’s Guide to Science,” (c) 1972; published by Basic Books Inc..
    “… When Oppenheimer worked out the properties of the neutron star in 1939, he predicted also that it was possible for a star that was massive enough and cool enough, to collapse altogether to nothingless. When such collapse proceeded past the neutron star stage, the gravitational field would become so intense that no matter what, no light could escape from it. Nothing could be seen of it; it would simply be a “black hole” in space.”
    To which concept I would say; Oppenheimer did not realize that the force of gravity is a field of energy, c2=E/m, initiated by the heat energy within a solar mass. No heat – no energy.

    Black holes today are an attempt to explain why so much mass is missing from creation – 90%. The galaxies have been stretched out, and there is not enough mass in empty space to account for distances outward and their being so far apart from each other. But, that condition is not really new news. In the book of Isaiah 45:12 God said 2700 years ago that the heavens had been stretched out. “I have made the earth, and created man upon it, I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.” So, then, it is not ‘black holes” that mankind needs to find, but God.

    The conclusion is this. Because moving mass has increased frequency change in direction of movement until it reaches the speed of light, it then converts into radiation; there is no manner by which a black hole is able to form under any condition. There is no manner whereby the mass in question may be anything other than the original mass converted into what it already, intrinsically, was. This means, if it is impossible for a black hole to form, then it is just as impossible for the “big bang” to have happened. Neither of these events ever did exist nor shall they. They both soon shall disappear with a “little poof” into an obscure page somewhere in antiquity.

    Like

  2. I wonder if I could get Duanes permission to load his information into a hotkey on my computer for rapid insertion into emails for distribution to friends and annoyances. (with proper credit, of course).

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s