OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 31, 2014, 05:46:43 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Case for Creator by Lee Strobel  (Read 3564 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Sloga
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 830



« on: July 20, 2006, 12:24:14 AM »

has anyone read this? Yes it is the same author and sequel to The Case for Christ, which was heavily criticzed by atheists. The case for a creator is basically about scientific proof of the Intellegent Design (while defunking darwin), the birth of the universe, DNA etc...using physics, chemistry, cosmology and other scientific/mathematical methods the author puts together a very good case. It also shows how false evidence recogznied by neo-darwinists continues to be put into textbooks, despites the faults. The author himself was an atheist for a large part of his life.

I am currently about halfway done (its only 100 or so pages) and I am very impressed. It's really unexplainable how well the author has compressed and simplified all that complicated science talk. I find it a very good read for those who want to believe in His existance, but under all this science age, feel that science and God cannot mix. This book pretty much clears up any questions about "how" and "what". Good read.
Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic
doubleaccount
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2006, 08:51:29 AM »

has anyone read this? Yes it is the same author and sequel to The Case for Christ, which was heavily criticzed by atheists. The case for a creator is basically about scientific proof of the Intellegent Design (while defunking darwin), the birth of the universe, DNA etc...using physics, chemistry, cosmology and other scientific/mathematical methods the author puts together a very good case. It also shows how false evidence recogznied by neo-darwinists continues to be put into textbooks, despites the faults. The author himself was an atheist for a large part of his life.

I am currently about halfway done (its only 100 or so pages) and I am very impressed. It's really unexplainable how well the author has compressed and simplified all that complicated science talk. I find it a very good read for those who want to believe in His existance, but under all this science age, feel that science and God cannot mix. This book pretty much clears up any questions about "how" and "what". Good read.

The atheists have found cause to criticize Strobel for this book, too: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/creator.html
« Last Edit: July 20, 2006, 08:51:56 AM by KATHXOYMENOC » Logged
DavidH
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 531



WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 20, 2006, 09:54:11 PM »

Fools always find reason to criticize the Truth that there is a God (Ps. 13:1).
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #3 on: July 20, 2006, 10:58:25 PM »

has anyone read this? Yes it is the same author and sequel to The Case for Christ, which was heavily criticzed by atheists. The case for a creator is basically about scientific proof of the Intellegent Design (while defunking darwin), the birth of the universe, DNA etc...using physics, chemistry, cosmology and other scientific/mathematical methods the author puts together a very good case. It also shows how false evidence recogznied by neo-darwinists continues to be put into textbooks, despites the faults. The author himself was an atheist for a large part of his life.

So it's sci-fi?
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,371



« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2006, 03:26:18 PM »

Quote
So it's sci-fi?

Ahh, but can something be sci-fi if you don't know it's fi? Or would it then just be pseudo-sci? In any event, one reviewer of the book pointed out that on the back cover it was classified as "Christian Living/Spiritual Growth". Hmm... Cool
Logged

GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2006, 04:14:30 PM »

Ahh, but can something be sci-fi if you don't know it's fi? Or would it then just be pseudo-sci? In any event, one reviewer of the book pointed out that on the back cover it was classified as "Christian Living/Spiritual Growth". Hmm... Cool

I guess that's the difference between sci-fi and pseudo-sci...in the latter the the sci-fi author actually takes his story seriously. So if this guy had written the book, but not published it, and it was later published by someone who simply found the story entertaining, would it then be pseudo-sci or sci-fi? Hmmm... Grin
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2006, 06:08:37 PM »

speculative fantasy maybe?    Grin  Alternate history?

And not agreeing with something or pointing out errors does not make a person a "fool".  It could be that Lee Strobel *has* made some mistakes.  (I haven't read the critique yet).

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 08, 2006, 04:18:57 AM »

I believe that "Intelligent" Design is only useful in pointing out the many flaws of Darwinism, but not that ID advocates have developed a demonstrable theory of their own. Darwin on Trial and Darwin's Black Box are good criticisms of the current scientific establishment, but that doesn't mean that ID should be taught in public schools any time soon.

Peace.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
FHL
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 65


« Reply #8 on: December 08, 2006, 08:58:32 AM »

I know this is an old post, but since Matt777 brought it up again, I must say that I have read Lee Strobel's "The Case for Faith", and it wasn't very strong. With every proof he presented on proving God's existance I immediatly came up with a good arguement against it. He also tended to end his arguements early and incomplete, ending with "So I guess it turns out the the proof really is on God's side!" all while I'm thinking that its a good thing I'm a Christian before reading this, becuase it certainly didn't convince me. There certainly are good answers to atheist objections, but I don't think the ones Lee Strobel presents are extremely valid. And if a believing Christian such as myself doesn't find it convincing, how is it to stand up against the scrutiny of athiests intent on disproving God?

He also spends alot of time argueing about things that don't matter.
Take for example this: He spends a good amount trying to refute the evidence for the scientific "Origin of life" theory, all while not realizing that it doesn't make a difference in the arguement, at all. If he is successful, it does not automatically mean there is a God, it could be easily said science has not yet discovered the reason yet. If he is unsuccessful, the "Origin of life" theory proves nothing, becuase it did not leave behind any fingerprints, so it's nothing but a possibility. If I am in Texas today and in New York two weeks later, one could most likely come up with good evidence that I could have flown to NY. That doesn't mean I didn't drive or take the bus though. If I leave a cup of water out in hot weather and find it empty two hours later, I could definatly come up with scientific evidence proving that it could have evaporated. But this does not rule out the possibility of someone drinking it.

In short, why spend time argueing against this theory when either way it really proves nothing about how life started? What he could have said instead could have been a simple sentence: if the origin of life theory is proved to be a truthfully possible way for life to start, so what?

I tend to notice this alot with western theistic literature. One of the reasons I think athiesm is truimphing in the west is due to the fact that almost all atheistic arguements have preconcieved false conditions that they have tricked the theists into believing as true, so when the theists rebuttal, they have to deal with these non-existant rules and obstacles they mistakenly believe to be of importance. Another reason is almost all these books are from a Protestant perspective, which, in no offense, isn't a very logically grounded faith to begin with.
Logged

"Let us love one another first, then in an atmosphere of love we can discuss theological matters." - H.H. Pope Shenouda III
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,155


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #9 on: December 08, 2006, 11:19:31 AM »

I believe that "Intelligent" Design is only useful in pointing out the many flaws of Darwinism, but not that ID advocates have developed a demonstrable theory of their own. Darwin on Trial and Darwin's Black Box are good criticisms of the current scientific establishment, but that doesn't mean that ID should be taught in public schools any time soon.

Peace.
I taught middle school science and I strongly believe that ID should be taught in School. Aside from the ontological proofs for the existence of God, I think it is rather clear that universe appears to be designed and that such a design suggests a designer. To ignore this is intellectual dishonesty.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,155


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #10 on: December 08, 2006, 11:22:27 AM »

I know this is an old post, but since Matt777 brought it up again, I must say that I have read Lee Strobel's "The Case for Faith", and it wasn't very strong. With every proof he presented on proving God's existance I immediatly came up with a good arguement against it. He also tended to end his arguements early and incomplete, ending with "So I guess it turns out the the proof really is on God's side!" all while I'm thinking that its a good thing I'm a Christian before reading this, becuase it certainly didn't convince me. There certainly are good answers to atheist objections, but I don't think the ones Lee Strobel presents are extremely valid. And if a believing Christian such as myself doesn't find it convincing, how is it to stand up against the scrutiny of athiests intent on disproving God?

He also spends alot of time argueing about things that don't matter.
Take for example this: He spends a good amount trying to refute the evidence for the scientific "Origin of life" theory, all while not realizing that it doesn't make a difference in the arguement, at all. If he is successful, it does not automatically mean there is a God, it could be easily said science has not yet discovered the reason yet. If he is unsuccessful, the "Origin of life" theory proves nothing, becuase it did not leave behind any fingerprints, so it's nothing but a possibility. If I am in Texas today and in New York two weeks later, one could most likely come up with good evidence that I could have flown to NY. That doesn't mean I didn't drive or take the bus though. If I leave a cup of water out in hot weather and find it empty two hours later, I could definatly come up with scientific evidence proving that it could have evaporated. But this does not rule out the possibility of someone drinking it.

In short, why spend time argueing against this theory when either way it really proves nothing about how life started? What he could have said instead could have been a simple sentence: if the origin of life theory is proved to be a truthfully possible way for life to start, so what?

I tend to notice this alot with western theistic literature. One of the reasons I think athiesm is truimphing in the west is due to the fact that almost all atheistic arguements have preconcieved false conditions that they have tricked the theists into believing as true, so when the theists rebuttal, they have to deal with these non-existant rules and obstacles they mistakenly believe to be of importance. Another reason is almost all these books are from a Protestant perspective, which, in no offense, isn't a very logically grounded faith to begin with.
I have read the Case for Faith too and I think you misunderstand its purpose. The "Case for Faith" was not written to prove the existence of God. Rather, it was written to help remove some of the stumbling blocks to faith in God. The "Case for Christ" on the other hand WAS written to prove that Christ rose from the dead and is who he claimed to be. The "Case for a Creator" is written to give evidence for the existence of God.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 08, 2006, 07:13:30 PM »

I taught middle school science and I strongly believe that ID should be taught in School. Aside from the ontological proofs for the existence of God, I think it is rather clear that universe appears to be designed and that such a design suggests a designer. To ignore this is intellectual dishonesty.

Why not, instead, place a disclaimer in science textbooks that the conclusions of science are tentative, and that students should aproach the question of origins with an open mind? Evem this idea has been struck down by the courts, but it's at least more sensible than teaching Intelligent Design. ID is more a political movement than it is a scientific research program.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2006, 07:13:54 PM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,155


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #12 on: December 08, 2006, 07:52:10 PM »

Why not, instead, place a disclaimer in science textbooks that the conclusions of science are tentative, and that students should aproach the question of origins with an open mind? Evem this idea has been struck down by the courts, but it's at least more sensible than teaching Intelligent Design. ID is more a political movement than it is a scientific research program.
No, ID is the logical conclusion of data gathered through observation. That IS what science is about.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 08, 2006, 08:14:42 PM »

What positive evidence have ID advocates given for their claims?
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #14 on: December 09, 2006, 12:05:48 AM »

An ID class is a great idea, we can stick it right in between our Star Trek and Star Wars classes; I guess you have to give people one boring and worthless class, teaches patience.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 10, 2006, 04:32:17 PM »

This book is by an Orthodox Christian scientist on the theory of evolution:

Quote
Beauty and Unity in Creation: The Evolution of Life
by Gayle E Woloschak

Format: Soft Bound

Description:
With insight into science and scientific approaches, Beauty and Unity in Creation brings the beauty of nature in focus, putting an Orthodox perspective on scientific exploration. As the author relates scientific facts into meaning, she cultivates a correct attitude toward scientific knowledge: we are reminded that any real truth abides in the Truth. While exploring the subject of evolution from an Orthodox perspective, this book actually locates the place of man in the universe and defines man's relationship with the rest of the living world.
http://www.light-n-life.com/shopping/order_product.asp?ProductNum=BEAU367

Peace.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,155


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #16 on: December 10, 2006, 05:35:59 PM »

No, ID is the logical conclusion of data gathered through observation. That IS what science is about.
Read Darwin's Black Box
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Panagiotis
Libertarian/Orthodox/Lush
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Phanar
Posts: 406


Advocating Liberty Since 1973


WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 10, 2006, 05:37:33 PM »

Quote
An ID class is a great idea, we can stick it right in between our Star Trek and Star Wars classes; I guess you have to give people one boring and worthless class, teaches patience.
To Yoda-ize your post, GiC:
Great idea, ID class is! between the Star Trek and Star Wars classes, inbetween we stick it- One boring and worthless class we must give them you guess. Patience, it teaches them, yes!

Blessings,
Panagiotis
Logged


"The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism"
-Ludwig Von Mises
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,155


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #18 on: December 10, 2006, 09:53:38 PM »

Do you think that ID and evolution are incompatible? If you do, that is simply not the case.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #19 on: December 10, 2006, 10:46:38 PM »

To Yoda-ize your post, GiC:
Great idea, ID class is! between the Star Trek and Star Wars classes, inbetween we stick it- One boring and worthless class we must give them you guess. Patience, it teaches them, yes!

Blessings,
Panagiotis

LOL...I see you are excelling at the new ID curriculum. Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 11, 2006, 01:33:55 AM »

This is my "now famous" (or infamous) article on Intelligent Design:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=7497.0

ID is more a right-wing political movement than a scientific research program:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Wedge_document

I've even seen Jonathan Wells lecture and then talked with him face to face. While speaking, he intentionally misquoted Charles Darwin to make the impression that Darwin was against the possibility of design. But when you look at the quote in context, it's obvious that Darwin meant the exact opposite:

"With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae [wasps] with the express intention of their [larva] feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all [original italics] satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can. Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws. A child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by the action of even more complex laws, and I can see no reason why a man, or other animals, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I probably have shown by this letter. Most deeply do I feel your generous kindness and interest. Yours sincerely and cordially, Charles Darwin"
(Darwin to Asa Gray, [a minister] May 22, 1860)


When I called Wells on his error, he claimed that he hadn't recently read the full letter and didn't really know what Darwin meant. When I then asked him concerning his involvement with the Unification church, he stopped me right there and told me that he'd only discuss the matter in private. The other ID advocates, in all honesty, are no different from Wells. Just think, when Michael Behe actually came before a court to defend the "theory" of Intelligent Design, he admitted that the "theory" itself uses such a broad definition of the term "theory" that even astrology would be included as science:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behe#Dover_testimony

Peace.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2006, 01:45:57 AM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Panagiotis
Libertarian/Orthodox/Lush
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Phanar
Posts: 406


Advocating Liberty Since 1973


WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 11, 2006, 01:50:50 AM »

LOL...I see you are excelling at the new ID curriculum. Wink
*drools
Yes, yes I have excelled at it.
*slumps in seat
*passes out

Blessings,
Panagiotis
Logged


"The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism"
-Ludwig Von Mises
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,180


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #22 on: December 11, 2006, 03:06:30 AM »

Oh good.......thanks so much, M777, for reviving yet another thread concerning evolution.  We're all in your debt.   Roll Eyes
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 11, 2006, 03:34:21 AM »

Oh good.......thanks so much, M777, for reviving yet another thread concerning evolution.  We're all in your debt.   Roll Eyes

The Case for a Creator is nothing more than a propaganda piece for an inherently political movement. That's all I have to say about that.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #24 on: December 11, 2006, 11:56:03 AM »

Oh good.......thanks so much, M777, for reviving yet another thread concerning evolution.  We're all in your debt.   Roll Eyes

I was thinking EXACTLY the same thing....
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
BoredMeeting
Loving the Life of a Council Member
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox/OCA
Posts: 721



« Reply #25 on: December 11, 2006, 12:18:02 PM »

I was thinking EXACTLY the same thing...
I think they should bill him for each word posted.
Logged
Tags: book 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.103 seconds with 53 queries.