Evidence for God from Science

A bit of my life story before I get to the question; bear with me.

After reading CS Lewis' book "Mere Christianity", I came to fall in love with Christianity, or at least the idea of it, entirely. It was refreshing. Up till then, all religious teaching I'd received sounded trivialized and dumb down just so I, a kid, could understand it. But with my invigorated enthusiasm came the realization that the weak faith argument (I just believe and that's it) could be used to justify absolutely anything. In short, I found my belief couldn't stand. I got into a few apologetic books. Stuff like Lee Strobel's books and I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist; but ultimately this just led to raising my hopes before they got dashed into the ground. Maybe I'm pessimistic, but it seemed like if there were ever an unanswered Amazon.com book comment from the atheist side, then the Christian faith was intellectually lacking. I began to wonder if atheists were unanswerable, and the whole thing just spiraled down from there. At this point I'm afraid to even seek at all, as I'm not sure if I'm emotionally stable enough to get my hopes up for something absolutely good and fulfilling, only to have someone else argue that it doesn't exist or couldn't exist.

In short, I guess I don't know how to "clinch" Christianity. When can I really believe? At this point I don't really feel justified in calling myself a Christian. Not that Christians don't have doubts or that they don't like to research apologetics every now and then, but that Christians at least know what they're doing and where they're going. I'm more agnostic about it. All I really know for sure is that a life without what Christianity promises is an empty one, at best. I've received some answers as to how to "end the matter", but I just don't know what to do.

For instance, William Lane Craig said in his Q&A section on his website that if one wishes to have firmer ground than the ever-shifting tides of evidence, that they could directly experience God and have it be part of their "basic belief". Needless to say this hasn't happened, and even if it did I don't know what I'd say to objectors. How could I prove it wasn't hallucination? Or that I'm going off of mere emotions and not "solid evidence"?

So really I'm in a rut and don't know what to do. How can I really find God? Up till now it seems like I can't, and there are tons of humanists/materialists/determinists/atheists/subjectivists/whatever to affirm just that.

Welcome Sleepykid,

Bit of advice - stay away from the Amazon Christianity forum. Rarely or never will a person be able to get a word in edgewise to explain things there. I go there only to spar and drop a few lines knowing full well — anything I respond too will be eventually drowned out by ceaseless mindless dribble. That forum is the let's attack and hate Christianity and never let them answer any challenges forum…

What on Amazon has gotten you so down?

Next — how do you define what faith is and believing in Christ? I ask that - So we can help you sink your teeth into some steak...

Also look over the articles posted on this sites Home Page as these may help you as well

http://www.godandscience.org/
-
-
-

Well, it's not just Amazon. Specific examples from there might be any review given by someone not in agreement with the Christian apologetic book out there. There's just this pervading feeling like as long as there's one person still unconvinced and unanswered, then the side I want to be true somehow isn't.

I guess I define faith as the Bible would define it; anything else seems pretty arbitrary, doesn't it? Though then again I guess I don't know how it defines, so I'll just say that Christianity, to me, requires faith that Jesus is our savior and that only through Him and His sacrifice can we be redeemed. It's a bit cliched, but it works for me.

I have looked into the articles here, and they're pretty good, it's just that there's still this feeling that somewhere there's someone who somehow can argue against it. I guess I'm not very good at evaluating merit, because to my mind it usually seems like whoever speaks last speaks loudest.

Sleepykid wrote:Well, it's not just Amazon. Specific examples from there might be any review given by someone not in agreement with the Christian apologetic book out there. There's just this pervading feeling like as long as there's one person still unconvinced and unanswered, then the side I want to be true somehow isn't.

I guess I define faith as the Bible would define it; anything else seems pretty arbitrary, doesn't it? Though then again I guess I don't know how it defines, so I'll just say that Christianity, to me, requires faith that Jesus is our savior and that only through Him and His sacrifice can we be redeemed. It's a bit cliched, but it works for me.

I have looked into the articles here, and they're pretty good, it's just that there's still this feeling that somewhere there's someone who somehow can argue against it. I guess I'm not very good at evaluating merit, because to my mind it usually seems like whoever speaks last speaks loudest.

It is not good to be a tumble weed blown about hither and thither. Faith is the anchor of the soul. without it, you'll drift here and there never reaching anything or anywhere at all.

Before Peter was given his name Peter by Jesus - his real name meant something like this: one that obeys whatever he hears - like a reed that bends wherever the wind blows. Christ gave him a new name and backbone. It was a process to gain that backbone to listen to the Lord and stop bending to where ever others pushed. He became a rock for the Rock Christ. You are in good company as Christ has given you a new name as well.

Question: when will you take a real stand and stop bending in every direction the wind blows? Are you ready?
-
-
-

This book should help you sort it out and put it in perspective: A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth Claims to the Worldview Test. Enjoy:

Sleepykid wrote:Well, it's not just Amazon. Specific examples from there might be any review given by someone not in agreement with the Christian apologetic book out there. There's just this pervading feeling like as long as there's one person still unconvinced and unanswered, then the side I want to be true somehow isn't.

I guess I define faith as the Bible would define it; anything else seems pretty arbitrary, doesn't it? Though then again I guess I don't know how it defines, so I'll just say that Christianity, to me, requires faith that Jesus is our savior and that only through Him and His sacrifice can we be redeemed. It's a bit cliched, but it works for me.

I have looked into the articles here, and they're pretty good, it's just that there's still this feeling that somewhere there's someone who somehow can argue against it. I guess I'm not very good at evaluating merit, because to my mind it usually seems like whoever speaks last speaks loudest.

Hey Sleepykid. Part of the faith is knowing that there will always be nonbelievers and those actively seeking to keep you away from the faith. You must know the story Jesus told of the rich man and Lazarus? Luke 16:19-31. Jesus said that some people would not believe even if someone was raised from the dead. No matter what, there will be people who will not accept God. If you accept Christianity as rationally acceptable and it gives you the hope that your heart desires, then why take seriously what others say to drag you away from that? I too am taken aback sometimes at the persuasiveness of some of the atheist arguments - at first. But after I step back and think about whatever it is they are claiming--with what I know of the bible, or after checking into some things closer--I find that they were either wrong or that their claim wasn't actually significant.

I hope you keep posting here with your concerns.

Ready as I'll ever be, B.W. I guess my problem arises from me just not being a very talented philosopher/thinker/whatever. I mean, to a point I can understand the dialogue between debaters and the like. (the point usually ends when they get into things like how the universe was created and other physics mumbo jumbo) So for me other than trust (and who do I trust? I can't pick favorites), the only way I evaluate if something is more acceptable or justified is if it's been answered or not. That's probably not very wise, but still whenever I see a comment or website or anything that doesn't seem to be answered, I wonder if what I wanted to be true really is.

Thanks for the book recommendation Age, I'll check that out. One thing about it bugged me though. From what I could tell from the site's reviews, the author's qualifications were something like "Can't be too complex or too simple", and "Fulfills human needs."

While those certainly sound nice and desirable, I don't know how that factors into truth itself. How can a worldview be estimated as more correct than another simply because it fulfills people, or has a balanced level of complexity? Maybe the truth is that life itself isn't fulfilling, though admittedly that'd be pretty weird for nature, in all her evolutionary glory, to bestow upon her creations desires that could not be fulfilled.

Thanks for the encouragement CSlover. I wish I were as clear a thinker as you. But given my fairly meager expertise with the subject matter, it seems like the only tools I have for evaluation are trust and who has or has not been answered. Didn't CS Lewis say something about how 99% of the things we know are based on authority? The situation gets tricky because both sides are claiming to be the authority. To give an example, in one debate William Lane Craig said that the chances for evolution are very improbable, and his opponent said that the scientists who calculate those statistics fudge with the numbers. After that, the only other options you have are trusting one side or the other, or being a scientist yourself and knowing everything about said numbers.

Sleepykid wrote:Ready as I'll ever be, B.W. I guess my problem arises from me just not being a very talented philosopher/thinker/whatever. I mean, to a point I can understand the dialogue between debaters and the like. (the point usually ends when they get into things like how the universe was created and other physics mumbo jumbo) So for me other than trust (and who do I trust? I can't pick favorites), the only way I evaluate if something is more acceptable or justified is if it's been answered or not. That's probably not very wise, but still whenever I see a comment or website or anything that doesn't seem to be answered, I wonder if what I wanted to be true really is.

You are more talented than you think. Question: Faith — what is it too you — personally? You stated traditional definitions but are these a reality too you?

To an Atheist, though they deny faith, do have faith in their belief system. They compile evidences and use this to buttress their faith in randomness and that becomes a reality to them. But what really is faith?

Think of Christian Faith as when Jesus Christ becomes more than a historic figure, or a set of church creeds, it is when Christ becomes a living reality within. From this comes the reality of sin and the need for someone to help us. When you believe in Christ, he becomes a living reality to you and he will guide you into all truth.

Truth:

Rom 1:19-23, "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

“21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things." ESV

How much of atheism, other religions, philosophy, political ideology, etc, exchange the glory of God for images(reality) they themselves create of based on humanistic notions, nature, etc? That denies the following truths:

Heb 9:27, “And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment…”

We are persons, doomed to die on a single planet spinning in the universe, this is a reality. We fail miserably at doing good and living by the shifting sands of human oriented morality. We face death but even that does not stop us from continuing doing stupid things to each other.

Rom 3:23, “...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…”

Some people set their hope in themselves, their good works, their philosophy, atheism, etc, but none can redeem or really provide lasting help. Faith in ones own faith is not good. Christianity is different from all others in that it shows how we forsake God, chose sin, and proves our need for someone to help us. The reality is this:

Human atheism, religions, philosophy, political ideologies, and human oriented morality cannot be that someone that can help us when we die. Deep down, people know they will face the great beyond but continue to deny this as well as deny God who will judge them. Why would God want people who have proved by their mortal life course to deny him or who place their faith in vain things other than in Him to inhabit eternity with?

Here is the reality of Christian Faith —

1 John 4:9-10, “In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” ESV

God sent someone to help us find our way back to him. This method of propitiation is unlike any of the ways of atheism, or other religions, philosophy, or political ideologies, or human centered morality. Its uniqueness makes it different.

Some claim Christianity stole the idea of propitiation for sins from pagan religions systems but this is not so because these never left the reality of someone who remains a living reality. These do not teach a person to place faith in God to change them, nor do they teach God centered morality which we cannot live up to, nor do they teach we are sinners in need of a savior. For them their stories serves justify man's sacrifice to redeem himself, never about God's sacrificing of himself to save so we can live through him. That's the difference.

Christian Faith / believing is the reality of Christ as a living person, raised from dead, who sent the Holy Spirit into our hearts. It is the reality of knowing God and learning of him day by day; He walks with us, and talks to us, everyday. He left us his word, this bible, as a road map back him so as we walk in this life we learn who God is returning to Him discovering our true purpose in the process.

He guides us. He is real to us for he lives within us. From this, our faith is energized by the reality of his love and we learn to love the Lord day by day, through all toils, good times, and bad times.

Think for a moment; do all roads led to your house? The answer is NO. If you do not give the directions to you house, how would anyone be able to find it? God gave us one road map back to his house. All the world's, religions, philosophies, political ideologies, and human oriented morality, and yes, even atheism, are not other paths leading to God.

That is humanity dictating to God how he should be by how humanity is so justified by its own human endeavors. Either we do not need God at all (atheism) or we'll tell God how he should be based on our terms and conditions (its either all paths led to God, or my works earn my way to you, and if not then - hit the highway God).

There is only one way and that way is through Christ alone. It is the uniqueness of the gospel message that gives it away, challenging people to choose this day who they'll serve: will it be - Human atheism, other religions, philosophies, political ideologies, human oriented morality or His living testimony to us?

Of these options, what I hear you asking is this: which way back to God is the true way - How can I be sure? It is by the uniqueness of the message that tells — God made the propitiation. The others, man earns his own redemption. If man earns his own redemption, how can God remain true to himself as truly sovereignty all powerful?

Faith is a living reality of God and Christ - as real as your own best friend.

John 14:17-19, “…even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. 18 "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live.” ESV

Without faith it is impossible...

Heb 11:6, “…And without faith (knowing the reality of God) it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe (know the reality) that he exists and that he rewards those who seek (Seek Greek - ekzēteō -- Thayer Definition: search for, investigate, scrutinize, seek out…) Him.” ESV

Heb 11:1-3, “Now faith (knowing the reality of God as real) is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith (knowing the reality of God) we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.” ESV

The writer of Hebrews goes one about how by faith (knowing the reality of God as a real) Enoch, Noah, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophet did what they did and how God reward them openly for such faith in him that seeks to know him and reveal him through their very lives.

Heb 11:33-35, “… who through faith (knowing the reality of God as a real) conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. 35 Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life…” ESV

That is the faith I sense you are searching for — Reality of Christ in you the hope of God's glory shine'n through you dispelling all your doubt and fears, transforming you life, learning to reveal who the Lord is through your very life...

So again — what is Faith to you — mere assertion to factoid creeds? - citation of certain scriptures? - knowing the reality of God as really real? Is the need for propitiation for your sins a reality? Is God and his work done for you such a living reality that it transforms and changes your life — so you know longer sway like a reed bowing to whomever speaks the loudest?
-
-
-

Sleepykid wrote: While those certainly sound nice and desirable, I don't know how that factors into truth itself. How can a worldview be estimated as more correct than another simply because it fulfills people, or has a balanced level of complexity? Maybe the truth is that life itself isn't fulfilling, though admittedly that'd be pretty weird for nature, in all her evolutionary glory, to bestow upon her creations desires that could not be fulfilled.

I'd say you really hit it here, Sleepykid. Life itself is not fulfilling (and Jesus also spoke of hating your life), and ideas related to that are some of the stronger apologetical points that Lewis used. We're always looking for things that, if we were only evolved, wouldn't make sense. We have a sense of time and time moving too quickly. Why? Because we're actually meant for eternity. We have a need for a type of love and fulfillment that we seem to not get from other humans. Why? Because we need a relationship with our maker. This is related, I think, to Lewis' pangs of joy, desire, and consequent grief, at certain times in his life. Many people experience this and it is, according to some, his strongest apologetical argument. This happens because we desire God and he desires us, not because nature evolved this trait - which would have no purpose - in us.

For some reason you seem to think that any worldview has to be scientific. We are raised that way now, and it's so ingrained. Science is a way of studying nature in an unbiased way. It has no value in fulfilling people. Truth comes in different forms, not just fact in a scientific sense. When you see and smell a rose, and you experience it's beauty, is there truth involved? Could a scientist measure the truth in your experience? Is your experience less because a scientist can't measure it? Yes, there needs to be balance. The Christian faith can be seen as rational and truthful in an objective sense, but it exists because God loves us and knows that we need Him.

Thanks for the encouragement CSlover. I wish I were as clear a thinker as you. But given my fairly meager expertise with the subject matter, it seems like the only tools I have for evaluation are trust and who has or has not been answered. Didn't CS Lewis say something about how 99% of the things we know are based on authority? The situation gets tricky because both sides are claiming to be the authority. To give an example, in one debate William Lane Craig said that the chances for evolution are very improbable, and his opponent said that the scientists who calculate those statistics fudge with the numbers. After that, the only other options you have are trusting one side or the other, or being a scientist yourself and knowing everything about said numbers.

A lot of what science knows today will be different 10, 50, 100 years from now. Science constantly studies and finds out new and more detailed things. Would you put your trust in something that is just investigative, and which may change? A lot of people don't view trust in God and trust in the scientific method as mutually exclusive. Have you read any of Hugh Ross's things?

cslewislover is correct in that scientific revolution occurs again and again. Read Thomas Kuhn; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions sometime. It was the resource that popularized the terms paradigm and paradigm shift. Though he received some criticism regarding his model of patterning how these paradigm shifts or scientific revolutions occur: his assertion that they do is indisputable.

Sleepykid wrote:A bit of my life story before I get to the question; bear with me.

After reading CS Lewis' book "Mere Christianity", I came to fall in love with Christianity, or at least the idea of it, entirely. It was refreshing. Up till then, all religious teaching I'd received sounded trivialized and dumb down just so I, a kid, could understand it. But with my invigorated enthusiasm came the realization that the weak faith argument (I just believe and that's it) could be used to justify absolutely anything. In short, I found my belief couldn't stand. I got into a few apologetic books. Stuff like Lee Strobel's books and I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist; but ultimately this just led to raising my hopes before they got dashed into the ground. Maybe I'm pessimistic, but it seemed like if there were ever an unanswered Amazon.com book comment from the atheist side, then the Christian faith was intellectually lacking. I began to wonder if atheists were unanswerable, and the whole thing just spiraled down from there. At this point I'm afraid to even seek at all, as I'm not sure if I'm emotionally stable enough to get my hopes up for something absolutely good and fulfilling, only to have someone else argue that it doesn't exist or couldn't exist.

In short, I guess I don't know how to "clinch" Christianity. When can I really believe? At this point I don't really feel justified in calling myself a Christian. Not that Christians don't have doubts or that they don't like to research apologetics every now and then, but that Christians at least know what they're doing and where they're going. I'm more agnostic about it. All I really know for sure is that a life without what Christianity promises is an empty one, at best. I've received some answers as to how to "end the matter", but I just don't know what to do.

For instance, William Lane Craig said in his Q&A section on his website that if one wishes to have firmer ground than the ever-shifting tides of evidence, that they could directly experience God and have it be part of their "basic belief". Needless to say this hasn't happened, and even if it did I don't know what I'd say to objectors. How could I prove it wasn't hallucination? Or that I'm going off of mere emotions and not "solid evidence"?

So really I'm in a rut and don't know what to do. How can I really find God? Up till now it seems like I can't, and there are tons of humanists/materialists/determinists/atheists/subjectivists/whatever to affirm just that.

What, specifically, is your question?

CSlover - True, I had never considered truth to be something other than fact. Not necessarily scientific or naturalistic facts, but just facts in general. But I guess I can voice my objections after I've read the book; it's all just hearsay 'till then. Who knows, maybe he answers them within the book itself. Thanks for the encouragement. No, I haven't read any of Hugh Ross' things. Are they good?

B.W. - Well, if I may be dry, faith, according to CS Lewis anyway, is just trust in what you know to be true, correct? What I'm more looking for is the whole God package, which I think is adequately described in Mere Christianity too. I seek for it so desperately because I'm almost 100% sure I had it at one point. I would be more loving of people, I'd pray for self-improvement, selfishness and cynicism were gradually shedding off, etc. But still lingering doubts and the like led me to realize that I was living on borrowed Christianity- like it wasn't really my own yet. I don't know if it's because my faith (or trust) wasn't strong enough or that I didn't really know Christianity to be true after all. What I'm looking for, I guess is to solidify my belief somehow. I just don't know how.

Rody- Heh, sorry. I know I must sound crazy right now. What I'm trying to do is discover how you "seal the deal" when it comes to Christianity. What do I have to do to renounce agnosticism and embrace Christianity once and for all? Is it like what William Lane Craig said; personally experiencing God? Or are there other ways?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=5889
That's the article in question I keep referring to when I speak of William Lane Craig. What do you think about it?

You have done the reading, the research, asked questions...all good. There is one more step you can take (and Dr. Craig mentions this frequently):

Go to the privacy of your room and pray.
Ask God to reveal Himself to you. If you are sincere, He will answer.

Science, philosophy, history ... all reveal the glory of God. But only by taking this personal step will you get to know who He is and how He can work in your life.

Sleepykid wrote:A bit of my life story before I get to the question; bear with me.

After reading CS Lewis' book "Mere Christianity", I came to fall in love with Christianity, or at least the idea of it, . . .

Hi! I can give you an answer that worked for me, so it should work for you as God has no favourites.
I too read CS Lewis (+ Watchman Knee and other apologetics books) and soon found "Christianity" intellectually satisfying and so beleieved it (as I understood it) and was called a "Christian" by myself and the church ministers I went to (after I had sincerely prayed "the sinners prayer").

For the next 18 months I continued going to meetings and reading books by people considered to be "Christian leaders" to try and work out God's will for me, without success! All I got was opinions.

Then I met people who were not going to different churches and reading lots of books about God, they had a confidence and contentment I had not attained to, despite my efforts. I realised my relationship with God was mostly one-way, from me, not the daily, growing 2-way relationship they seemed to have.

They had received the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues (an unlearned prayer language that God leads his people in, cos only he knows his perfect will for us, it allows him to minister his grace & love to our hearts - 1 Cor. 14v2, 4; Jude 20-21). They also had other direct input and leading from God. After a while I realised I was getting nowhere spiritually so for the first time I actually prayed expecting God to *do* something... namely give me the same as them or whatever else I needed.

One evening I was alone in my room, not doubting or fearing, just believing God had said yes to me (because he could have no favourites), and wanting nothing more, I prayed and spoke in tongues and in the days that followed I realised I had the Life spoken of in the bible, whereas before I was trying to be something I was not ! I used to worry and get bored, now I see God opening my understanding about why things are the way they are, and more importantly, what life can be like.

I left the old churches because I could see they was as I was before, not as I wanted to be. The church I'm now in is like the one in the new testament, all members have the new Life, we have a unity I never found before. I now have contentment and fulfilling purpose that only the living God can give. I am now able to know God's thoughts and live according to His nature because I have His heart and mind through the Holy Spirit in me

* * * * *

You need to drop this notion that "Christianity" is "an idea", it is in fact a new Life that you need to receive, by receiving the Holy Spirit, as detailed in the bible (see Acts 2:4, 33, 39; 10:44-48).

"as it is written, Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for them that love him . . . For what man knows the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knows no man, but the Spirit of God." (1 Cor. 2:9, 11)

Or, as Jesus put it:-

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
The wind blows where it listeth, and you hear the sound thereof, but cannot tell whence it comes, and whither it goes: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." (John 3:6-8)

A certain attitude is needed to receive the Spirit - an acknowledgement that you need to, so you want nothing more.

Sleepy, if you are still around, I want to point something out that you may not have thought of:

People's non-belief says nothing about the absolute believability of a subject. Let me explain. This is something atheists know well, so they really show themselves to be pure hypocrites on this. Go tell an atheist that the reason you don't believe in evolution is because so many people don't believe it, and that every argument seems to have doubts raised against it. Do you think they'll nod and tell you that you are being reasonable, and they, too, can't quite believe it for just the same reason?

Of course not. They'll mock and deride those who doubt evolution and then point out, rightly, that people who refuse to see the evidence make no difference when it comes to the validity of the evidence. But then comes the hypocrisy. For they will turn around and ask you how they possibly could believe in Christianity when every arguments Christians make have been challenged by atheists!

Then what should we do about arguments and evidence?

Simple. First, you must understand that every fact is evidence for every argument. That may sound counter intuitive, but it is something that all philosophically grounded scientists recognize. Let's take a real life example to illustrate. When Mendel first discovered his law of dominant and recessive genes (not that he called them "genes" at the time!), he did what any right thinking scientist would do. He submitted his paper to be published. It was rejected at first, though. The reason was that, although he had developed a beautiful model that accurately described all of his observations, his model was just that: a model that described all of his observations. Well, anyone can do that. That's not science. Evidence that is read in light of a previously erected ideology is worthless, because the evidence is forced into a mold; if there is no way to fit it, it is simply ignored or rejected. It wasn't until Mendel further developed his model, deduced predictions from it, and had them confirmed that his paper was published and formed the basis for modern genetics (see this Genetics 1 lecture from MIT's basic biology for details).

What this means is that you can't just build up a model around a given set of evidence and them claim you have evidence for your position. That's not good science. It's not good thinking. It's not good philosophy. It's not good anything. Again, any observation can be evidence for any argument you like.

Let's take this one step further before we conclude. Did you know that early evolutions held to their belief in evolution in the face of complete and utter of evidence, and, in fact, in the face of contrary evidence? They still do today. But I don't have to give you an argument to prove it. I can give you their own words admitting as much:

Herbert Spencer wrote in Principles of Psychology, "I cheerfully acknowledge that the hypothesis of evolution is best with "serious problems" scientifically. Yet save for those who still adhere to the Hebrew myth, or the doctrine of special creations derived from it, there is no alternative but this hypothesis or no hypothesis." (1:466n)

He further said in a letter referring to his own intellectual pilgrimage that "in 1852 the belief in organic evolution had taken deep root" . . . not for scientific reasons, but because "the necessity of accepting the hypothesis of Evolution when the hypothesis of Special Creation has been rejected." He concludes his letter as follows: "The Special Creation belief had dropped out of my mind many years before, and I could not remain in a suspended state: acceptance of the only conceivable alternative was peremtory."

Thomas Huxley admitted that he had "long done with the [Biblical] cosmogeny" and thus nursed "a pious conviction that Evolution, after all, would turn out true" (Huxley 1903, 1:241, 243). His son, speaking of his father's faith in spontaneous generation, wrote that even though "there was no evidence that anything of the sort had occurred recently" his father still continued to believe that "at some remote period, life have arisen out of inanimate matter", not for scientific reasons, but as "an act of philosophic faith" (2:16).

Moving to the present, Richard Dawkins has admitted, "Even if the evidence did not favour [Darwinian evolution], it would still be the best theory available!" (The Blind Watchmaker, 317).

Examples, could be multiplied, but these three are sufficient to validate this simple statement: evolutionists do not believe in evolution based on science, but on a preconceived philosophical commitment to naturalism!

Now, here's the money shot. You cannot convince someone who has a philosophical commitment that their position is wrong by presenting them with contrary evidence. The reason is that they will view your evidence in light of that commitment. They will exclude, by definition, contrary conclusions. Thus, when an atheist reads and rejects the arguments from Christian apologists, that says nothing of the value of his or her work. What it DOES say something about is that atheist's own worldview and their commitment to it.

The bottom line: they are closed minded, and thus, they CANNOT be persuaded until they open themselves to theistic alternatives as possible.

What does that say for you, then? Simple. Do not let the closed-mindedness of others force you to close your own mind. Arguments are true or false in and of themselves, regardless of whether or not others assent to them. 2+2=4 even if I rail against that fact. Likewise, Jesus' resurrection is a fact even if I rail against it. The evidence for it is overwhelming. The question is simply this: have I been presented enough evidence that I have sufficient reason to assent to an idea's truthfulness? In the case of Christianity, the answer is a resounding "yes."

By way of conclusion, I would encourage you to read this short, 60 page booklet that demonstrates the absolute stupidity of unabashed skepticism. Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte. In it, the author satirically "proves" Napoleon never existed using exactly the same methodology that NT critics use to deny Jesus' resurrection. You can finish it in one good sitting. And when you are done, ask yourself this:

1. Is a rational person not a person who goes where the evidence leads?
2. Is an irrational person not a person who chooses to ignore where the evidence leads (but acts on blind faith)?
3. Is there not extensive evidence for Jesus' resurrection (and for Christianity in general)?
4. Is not the rational person, then, the one who assents to the truth of Christianity?
5. Is not the irrational person, then, the one who is aware of the facts, but based on a blind commitment to his philosophical preconceptions, chooses to reject the necessary conclusion of Christianity's truthfulness?
6. Do I wish to live my life as a rational or irrational human being?

If rational, then you must assent to the truth of Christianity. If irrational, then I would simply encourage you to be consistent in your irrationality. Stop looking both ways before you cross the street. Stop obeying laws. Stop reasoning all the way around, because if reason is not important, but only blind commitment to want you want to be true, then why selectively use reason at all?