[agrimes87]

Have any of you read his books? I read the student's edition of the Case for a Creator, and I've skimmed through the Case for Christ. I've come to my own conclusions about it (mainly about the bad logic involved), but I'm interested to see what others think about it, particularly The Case for a Creator.

Is it really compelling evidence? Is his logic misleading? Did it pull you towards one side or another? Just your thoughts.

[OneHope]

I personally have only read Case For Christ and Case For Faith. I liked the former but The Case For Faith wasn't as good. Maybe it's because I'm skeptical of all Christian books that make a lot of money. I have also read part of Earl Doherty's cross-examination of the Case For Christ and it made me think that if this was the best stuff against the evidence than the evidence must be pretty good.

[Nate]

I read one of his books. I think it was the Case for Faith, but it might have been Case for Christ. In any event, supported the idea of an absolutely free and autonomous will too much for it to really be meaningful to me at all. I felt that most of his "answers" were cop-outs.

In His love,
Nate

[NSJ0309]

I think the Case for Christ was a much more real, ore organic experience for the author, since he was actually struggling with his faith at the time. I've read the Case for Faith, and skimmed Creator, and found them to both be a little bit forced, a little bit heavy handed. The Case for Christ is excellent, and I think everyone should read it. The others. Meh, take 'em or leave 'em.

[Qingu]

Can you summarize some of the arguments in these books? I'm guessing they're basically

The universe looks designed for us so there must be a God.
Everything must have a cause so God exists.
The gospels have some historically accurate details so we should believe them about everything.

I've put off reading these books for a while though...

[BurntHombre]

The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus

From the amazon.com description:

The Case for Christ records Lee Strobel's attempt to "determine if there's credible evidence that Jesus of Nazareth really is the Son of God." The book consists primarily of interviews between Strobel (a former legal editor at the Chicago Tribune) and biblical scholars such as Bruce Metzger. Each interview is based on a simple question, concerning historical evidence (for example, "Can the Biographies of Jesus Be Trusted?"), scientific evidence, ("Does Archaeology Confirm or Contradict Jesus' Biographies?"), and "psychiatric evidence" ("Was Jesus Crazy When He Claimed to Be the Son of God?"). Together, these interviews compose a case brief defending Jesus' divinity, and urging readers to reach a verdict of their own.

Haven't read it myself, though I've heard it mentioned often. If I understand correctly, Strobel was formerly a skeptic and agnostic who came to faith over the course of two years. This book, though written after his conversion, is an attempt to chronicle the arguments and answers he encountered during those two years.

[NSJ0309]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Can you summarize some of the arguments in these books? I'm guessing they're basically

The universe looks designed for us so there must be a God.
Everything must have a cause so God exists.
The gospels have some historically accurate details so we should believe them about everything.

I've put off reading these books for a while though...

The Case for Christ is more about his search for accurate history regarding Jesus through extra-biblical sources, archeology, Biblical scholars, etc. In his introduction, he states that at the time he was an atheist. It is quite a compelling read. Of course, as with any discourse, you can nit-pick and break down his arguments and "reasearch," but I think it holds up nonetheless.

Faith and Creator are more of the same, but without the drive of someone truly on a personal search. Faith is about answering the "big questions": If there is a God why is there pain, how did the universe begin, evolution vs. creation. Creator is all about Intelligent Design, and I think it's the weakest of the trio. You can check out the books on Amazon. The website lets you look at a few excerpts.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by NSJ0309

The Case for Christ is more about his search for accurate history regarding Jesus through extra-biblical sources, archeology, Biblical scholars, etc. In his introduction, he states that at the time he was an atheist. It is quite a compelling read. Of course, as with any discourse, you can nit-pick and break down his arguments and "reasearch," but I think it holds up nonetheless.

There is no archaeological evidence which corroborates anything in the gospels. There is evidence which contradicts the gospels -- for example, lack of Roman reports of an army of zombie saints rising from their graves as described in Mat 27, earthquakes, strange astrological pheonomena.

As for extra-biblical sources, there aren't any. Josephus has been discussed to death on this forum and is not even contemporary with the events.

Is there anything worth reading in this book that I haven't heard of and refuted?

Faith and Creator are more of the same, but without the drive of someone truly on a personal search. Faith is about answering the "big questions": If there is a God why is there pain, how did the universe begin, evolution vs. creation. Creator is all about Intelligent Design, and I think it's the weakest of the trio. You can check out the books on Amazon. The website lets you look at a few excerpts.

Ah, argument from design, and tired old apologetics about the problem of evil. Sounds lame. (I've read a few excerpts).

I'd read him if he was as charming as C.S. Lewis or wrote about talking lions, maybe.

[BurntHombre]

Originally Posted by Qingu

There is no archaeological evidence which corroborates anything in the gospels.

Do you mean this statement to be as absolute as it sounds, or are you referring to a lack of evidence that corroborates things like Jesus' miracles, resurrection, etc.?

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by BurntHombre

Do you mean this statement to be as absolute as it sounds, or are you referring to a lack of evidence that corroborates things like Jesus' miracles, resurrection, etc.?

Absolute. No archaeological evidence period. (Unless you count things like the existence of a country called Rome, Roman officials, the practice of crucifiction). Jesus left behind no artifacts. There are no attributed writings to him or any of his immediate followers. While I don't believe that absence of evidence is evidence of absence (I believe Jesus existed), I find the complete lack of any evidence of fantastic claims like zombie saints and earthquakes -- all of which the Romans most certainly would have written about -- to discredit the New Testament as a historical text. It is also not historical because it is not signed. All ancient histories--if they were to be considered legimimtate even back in the day -- were signed and dated.

[BurntHombre]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Absolute. No archaeological evidence period. (Unless you count things like the existence of a country called Rome, Roman officials, the practice of crucifiction).

Okay, just wondering. So you'd agree that some things in the gospels are corroborated by archaeology (places, names, customs) but some names and events are not. I just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly.

[Milisha]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Absolute. No archaeological evidence period. (Unless you count things like the existence of a country called Rome, Roman officials, the practice of crucifiction)...

I'm not sure where you get your information; a cursory glance at any Bible Encyclopedia (attached to the back of many bibles) would dispel that idea. The Gospels are full of superfluous information that wouldn't be there if it were just "made up".

An example: want to see where the apostle Peter lived in Capernaum?
http://www.christiananswers.net/dict...capernaum.html

If it weren't for the superfluous information found in the bible, they wouldn't have been able to say for certain that the ruins were those of his house.

[JerryLove]

I'm not sure where you get your information; a cursory glance at any Bible Encyclopedia (attached to the back of many bibles) would dispel that idea. The Gospels are full of superfluous information that wouldn't be there if it were just "made up".

You mean like how what the hobbits had for breakfast, and the appendicies prove that Lord of the Rings is not just "made up"?

[agrimes87]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Can you summarize some of the arguments in these books? I'm guessing they're basically

The universe looks designed for us so there must be a God.
Everything must have a cause so God exists.
The gospels have some historically accurate details so we should believe them about everything.

I've put off reading these books for a while though...

No, it's not that simple at all. In Creator, he gives a lot of reasons why it's infintesimally close to impossible for the universe to have turned out the way it did, with so much order, and for it to be so hospitable to life. If it wasn't for the fact that he only interviewed Christian scientists and apologetics experts, and didn't even so much as interview an atheist or even the scientists that the christians he interviewed were attacking....it might be more compelling. But it's very biased. It basically gives a lot of reasons for "what are the odds!". And while I would admit that the evidence he gives is incredible (I find it very difficult to believe in evolution the way I used to)...the problem I find is that no matter what the odds are, the fact is that since we're here, the odds are 100%. If it hadn't worked out the way it did, we wouldn't be here in the first place. For us to be here talking about it, it HAD to work out this way. So this whole notion that "the universe must have an intelligent creator because the odds are so incredibly low that it formed randomly" is a crock. We're here, so it happened; odds have nothing to do with the truth.

I'd like to read a book that takes an unbiased look at these "Cases".

[JerryLove]

It basically gives a lot of reasons for "what are the odds!". And while I would admit that the evidence he gives is incredible (I find it very difficult to believe in evolution the way I used to)...the problem I find is that no matter what the odds are, the fact is that since we're here, the odds are 100%.

The odds are uncomputeable. The only way to even guestimate the odds would be to create a bunch of universes and see how often it happend.

Of course, visiting a bunch of other planets may give us an idea of the odds of life forming in this universe. But that doesn't look particularly feasable in the forseeable future either.

We don't know how many different ways, or under how many different conditions we can get life, and we don't know how hard those conditions are to come by. It's quite possible that there is no other possible outcome.

The argument appeals to the ignorance of the reader (often written by the ignorance of the author) as to fathoming the apparently unfathomable... of course, the apparently unfathomable to some is routine to others (how's your ability to perform the math in particle physics these days?).