What do you think?
Rate this book
Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case
What if your best reasons to doubt God prove that He exists?In an engaging and memorable way, Stealing from God shows how many atheistic arguments, instead of disproving God, reveal that He actually exists.
ebook
First published December 18, 2014
487 people are currently reading
3594 people want to read
About the author
Frank Turek
21 books312 followers"Frank Turek is an American Christian author, Christian Apologist and public speaker at universities, conferences, and churches. He is the author of two books, Correct, Not Politically Correct and Stealing from God, and co-author of two more with Norman Geisler, I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist and Legislating Morality. He hosts a call-in talk show called CrossExamined on American Family Radio. His television show, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, airs on the NRB Network.
Turek is a former aviator in the U.S. Navy, and has a Masters degree in Public Administration from George Washington University and a doctorate in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary. He has also taught classes in Leadership and Management at George Washington University."
-- Wikipedia
Turek is a former aviator in the U.S. Navy, and has a Masters degree in Public Administration from George Washington University and a doctorate in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary. He has also taught classes in Leadership and Management at George Washington University."
-- Wikipedia
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 200 reviews
April 10, 2020
Turek is a very talented Christian apologist. I first discovered Frank Turek from watching his videos on YouTube and I was very impressed with how he handled tough questions from people he debated. His debate with Christopher Hitchens was especially terrific. This book pretty much lays out the arguments presented by Turek in his debates in layman’s terms. Turek uses archaeology, chemistry, biology, reason, and history to make the case for Christianity. Norman Geisler would be proud to learn how much Turek has improved in apologetics!
January 14, 2016
Note 1/14/2016 : I added a too long response to one of the comments below. It is an attempt to respond to some of the core assertions by books like this one, and as offered by someone who apparently read it and responded to this post. It server as a part 2 to this post in some ways.
---------
Read through the first pages using the preview function. He makes a serious flaw/assertion (assumption) and then seems to use this base as the basis of his point: To Wit " atheists are materialists, therefore they have to prove that everything that exists is to be explained from a strictly materialistic framework.
The premise is flawed in multiple ways : Here is the most egregious so far:
Location 339: "Atheists must make a positive case that only material things exist."
From this simplicity he deduces many flawed derivative points. Just to counter assert : No, that is not true. To attempt to say so is to force the conversation into a childish level. But, to grant the point, if it were true that one "had to" describe everything in terms of strictly materialistic terms and language then of course his case is essentially made. But it is made on a seriously flawed point.
For example: we'd have to agree what constituted materialism... for example is the electromagnetic spectrum "material"? But years ago that would have been, and was , considered a heresy by the church.
I suspect much of the argument today has the same outlines ... just different language and examples.
In earlier locations, he seems to be making the logical framework that there are Atheists and Christians, and that is about it. And that Atheists are in specific fight against "The God of the Bible".
This is also a serious flaw. One I expect makes the book simplistic and off point rather than the hammer for God others seem to think it is.
One does not have to be an atheist to debate, or even categorically deny the god of the bible, the bible itself , or any of the monotheistic religions. The point/counter point is not God( as expressed in the Bible) or you’re an atheist.
Or .. more comprehensively, not even all the major/minor world religions.
Religions are just that. Codified systems of belief and doctrines that purport to explain things. Often they explain things that are out side the ability of people to explain... all that we do not understand is denominated as "God".
Then "God" gets equated with a certain set of precepts, all of which form a religion. This is perhaps the most pernicious flaw in "theistic" thinking... To equate our logic and beliefs with the profound unknowable, and then be so cock sure that "I know God and Gods will" as a consequence.
Atheists fight is not so binary as all that. Or rather, one can be an "Atheist" in respect to these religions and be quite spiritual otherwise.
In order to have the conversation we must be more clear about the terms and the predicates of our thinking.
I found so many flawed foundational assertions along the lines pointed out here in just the first few pages of reading that I suspect the book is structurally/logically flawed all the way through.
Someday I may take a longer read, and perhaps make a more detailed reply.
---------
Read through the first pages using the preview function. He makes a serious flaw/assertion (assumption) and then seems to use this base as the basis of his point: To Wit " atheists are materialists, therefore they have to prove that everything that exists is to be explained from a strictly materialistic framework.
The premise is flawed in multiple ways : Here is the most egregious so far:
Location 339: "Atheists must make a positive case that only material things exist."
From this simplicity he deduces many flawed derivative points. Just to counter assert : No, that is not true. To attempt to say so is to force the conversation into a childish level. But, to grant the point, if it were true that one "had to" describe everything in terms of strictly materialistic terms and language then of course his case is essentially made. But it is made on a seriously flawed point.
For example: we'd have to agree what constituted materialism... for example is the electromagnetic spectrum "material"? But years ago that would have been, and was , considered a heresy by the church.
I suspect much of the argument today has the same outlines ... just different language and examples.
In earlier locations, he seems to be making the logical framework that there are Atheists and Christians, and that is about it. And that Atheists are in specific fight against "The God of the Bible".
This is also a serious flaw. One I expect makes the book simplistic and off point rather than the hammer for God others seem to think it is.
One does not have to be an atheist to debate, or even categorically deny the god of the bible, the bible itself , or any of the monotheistic religions. The point/counter point is not God( as expressed in the Bible) or you’re an atheist.
Or .. more comprehensively, not even all the major/minor world religions.
Religions are just that. Codified systems of belief and doctrines that purport to explain things. Often they explain things that are out side the ability of people to explain... all that we do not understand is denominated as "God".
Then "God" gets equated with a certain set of precepts, all of which form a religion. This is perhaps the most pernicious flaw in "theistic" thinking... To equate our logic and beliefs with the profound unknowable, and then be so cock sure that "I know God and Gods will" as a consequence.
Atheists fight is not so binary as all that. Or rather, one can be an "Atheist" in respect to these religions and be quite spiritual otherwise.
In order to have the conversation we must be more clear about the terms and the predicates of our thinking.
I found so many flawed foundational assertions along the lines pointed out here in just the first few pages of reading that I suspect the book is structurally/logically flawed all the way through.
Someday I may take a longer read, and perhaps make a more detailed reply.
April 18, 2016
This book was so much fun. Indeed, I have yet to meet an atheist who lives like a 100% atheist.
Daily I come across atheists who break their own rules. Frank Turek shows us exactly how and when this happens. It's hilarious when they complain that something isn't FAIR, or JUST, or Equal, Or Moral...they assume a standard that they demand doesn't exist. Nothing is sacred they say, but then cry when a sacred code is defiled.
So where do they get all these standards from: GOD of course.
These pages are filled with Ravi Zacharias, John Lennox, William Lane Craig and Norman Geisler - many great minds. And we get endless comedy quotes from Dawkins, Harris, Hitchen's, and Krauss - not so great minds, often buffoons.
I loved this quote (pg. 26)
"why do atheists find it so hard to believe in an eternal God? For centuries atheists had no problem believing in an eternal universe."
Frank and I have both learned that constantly atheists demand a logical answer to their emotional questions - or an emotional answer to their logical questions. They will continually flip so they never have to confront the brutal hopelessness of their atheism.
Which reminds me: I have yet to meet an atheist who has investigated Atheism. Sure, they'll spend thousands of hours on their hatred of Christianity, but assume they are intellectually smug because they disagree with Dawkins on a snide remark. They are terrified to go down the dark well that is their worldview... so they keep selling it and mocking those who dare to question its black hole of meaninglessness.
So don't ever be caught without a logical and rational attack against the Atheistic hordes. This book should get you started nicely.
But be aware: Atheists will suddenly become agnostic when heavily challenged. Then they'll flip back to Atheism when they are in a safe zone. Like trying to scold a 6 year old for attempting to eat a chocolate cookie before bed --- they'll try logic on you, but it's really just Ego and Desire mixed with emotions.
If you chat with any atheist long enough: it'll end up their belief in Space Aliens. Science indeed.
Daily I come across atheists who break their own rules. Frank Turek shows us exactly how and when this happens. It's hilarious when they complain that something isn't FAIR, or JUST, or Equal, Or Moral...they assume a standard that they demand doesn't exist. Nothing is sacred they say, but then cry when a sacred code is defiled.
So where do they get all these standards from: GOD of course.
These pages are filled with Ravi Zacharias, John Lennox, William Lane Craig and Norman Geisler - many great minds. And we get endless comedy quotes from Dawkins, Harris, Hitchen's, and Krauss - not so great minds, often buffoons.
I loved this quote (pg. 26)
"why do atheists find it so hard to believe in an eternal God? For centuries atheists had no problem believing in an eternal universe."
Frank and I have both learned that constantly atheists demand a logical answer to their emotional questions - or an emotional answer to their logical questions. They will continually flip so they never have to confront the brutal hopelessness of their atheism.
Which reminds me: I have yet to meet an atheist who has investigated Atheism. Sure, they'll spend thousands of hours on their hatred of Christianity, but assume they are intellectually smug because they disagree with Dawkins on a snide remark. They are terrified to go down the dark well that is their worldview... so they keep selling it and mocking those who dare to question its black hole of meaninglessness.
So don't ever be caught without a logical and rational attack against the Atheistic hordes. This book should get you started nicely.
But be aware: Atheists will suddenly become agnostic when heavily challenged. Then they'll flip back to Atheism when they are in a safe zone. Like trying to scold a 6 year old for attempting to eat a chocolate cookie before bed --- they'll try logic on you, but it's really just Ego and Desire mixed with emotions.
If you chat with any atheist long enough: it'll end up their belief in Space Aliens. Science indeed.
February 11, 2019
A Christian’s Guide to Being a Condescending Prick
Are you an insecure evangelical? Are you tired of bumping into secular ideologies that make you have to think? Well have we got a book for you! Turn your mind off to “Stealing from God”: the book where Turek will gently tell you that you are right about everything and it’s everyone else who’s stupid.
Seriously though, Turek makes no attempt to understand the viewpoints of atheists and instead produced a condescending book-length straw-man attack on secularism. He calls atheists stupid over and over and you know what? I am probably a little stupider having read this book.
Are you an insecure evangelical? Are you tired of bumping into secular ideologies that make you have to think? Well have we got a book for you! Turn your mind off to “Stealing from God”: the book where Turek will gently tell you that you are right about everything and it’s everyone else who’s stupid.
Seriously though, Turek makes no attempt to understand the viewpoints of atheists and instead produced a condescending book-length straw-man attack on secularism. He calls atheists stupid over and over and you know what? I am probably a little stupider having read this book.
November 8, 2015
RESEÑA EN ESPAÑOL COMPLETA
This book is an incredible tool for all those who want to basis of the existence of God. Atheists often have more information than one who claims to believe in God, but this book provides the necessary knowledge to learn about this topic.
"Stealing from God" explains how atheists need God to prove its nonexistence. However, if they profess not believe in Him , how can they need God to base their claims?
In the eight chapters of this book , we learn about Causality, Reason, Information and intention, Morality, Evil, Science, The four points of the case for " Mere Christianity" (based on the book by CS Lewis) and in conclusion, the freedom that He gives us and how God will not force you into heaven against your will.
The language of this book is easy and understandable , so one need not be a scholar on the subject to understand what is written here. Furthermore, it is agile and enjoyable because there are not only concepts and arguments, it also explains with practical examples and anecdotes that illustrate these truths.
If you're looking for a book to help you support your faith in God and also help you get answers to questions of atheists, you must read this book.
-I received a free eBook from the publisher but this fact didn't influence the review-
May 7, 2025
Excellent !!!!! Even better the second time around!!!!!!
April 17, 2015
I was given this book to review by Tyndale and was so happy they did. I really feel like I learned more about the thought process behind trying to disprove God. It was written well and researched well too. I liked the ideas and gained new knowledge of how atheists think. His points on atheists adopting morals from God is so good. It helped me understand even more why the attitude of believe nothing is fruitless, especially against laws and the system we now use in our government. This took me a while to read just because I was really enjoying and trying to soak in the thoughts the author presented. I definitely recommend this book, it answers a lot.
May 20, 2018
I read this book on the recommendation of a friend, and, boy, what a mistake that was! I can't tell you the number of times I rolled my eyes, did a facepalm, or wanted to throw the book up against the nearest wall. Basically the book was one big exercise in question begging. God is the origin of X, Y, and Z because God is the origin of everything. And God is the origin of everything because God is the origin of X, Y, and Z. Add in a misunderstanding of both evolution and intelligent design and you have a real mess on your hands. And the handling of the Bible is only going to be accepted by people ignorant of contemporary scholarship on the subject.
December 20, 2017
Frank Turek is a great author and debater. This book shows the inconsistencies and hypocrisy of the atheist arguments against GOD. He's also a very entertaining speaker, but talks fast. it's nice to be able to read his debate points at a leisurely pace!
February 7, 2015
This is a book that every college student should have. Wait, let me rephrase that. This is a book that everybody should have. Frank Turek is incredibly informed and detailed when talking about the different arguments for atheism vs. theism. In this book, he actually shows you how it takes more faith to believe that there is no God, than to believe the God of the Bible.
Throughout the book, you will find many different debates with high profile atheists. He, and others, go head to toe with Richard Hawkings, Stephen Hawkin, Christopher Hitchens, etc... Fascinating to see all these brilliant minds and the conclusions that they come to.
Please pick up a copy because it is what you need to strengthen your faith and be able to defend it. Incredibly informative and clear. Pick a couple up! One for you and one to gift!!
"but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect" 1 Peter 3:15
Thanks, Tyndale, for giving me a copy of this book. As always, this is my honest review. Here's to many more!!
Throughout the book, you will find many different debates with high profile atheists. He, and others, go head to toe with Richard Hawkings, Stephen Hawkin, Christopher Hitchens, etc... Fascinating to see all these brilliant minds and the conclusions that they come to.
Please pick up a copy because it is what you need to strengthen your faith and be able to defend it. Incredibly informative and clear. Pick a couple up! One for you and one to gift!!
"but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect" 1 Peter 3:15
Thanks, Tyndale, for giving me a copy of this book. As always, this is my honest review. Here's to many more!!
September 5, 2019
The book gets progressively worse and Frank Turek starts repeating himself over and over again. Towards the end it also turns more and more into praise for the Christian god.
He also sees atheism and materialism as the same thing. And doesn't acknowledge that you can think that there is no god but still believe that there is such a thing as souls or other spiritual stuff.
Finally I just don't agree with a lot of his opinions. Here are two quotes:
"Theists didn't make up the fact that murder is wrong, that abortion is wrong, that only men and women can procreate and provide mothering and fathering in raising children. They didn't invent those facts. Theists are merely recognizing them."
"Conservatives try to adjust their behaviour to fit the facts of nature. Liberals try to adjust the facts of nature to fit their behaviour."
He also sees atheism and materialism as the same thing. And doesn't acknowledge that you can think that there is no god but still believe that there is such a thing as souls or other spiritual stuff.
Finally I just don't agree with a lot of his opinions. Here are two quotes:
"Theists didn't make up the fact that murder is wrong, that abortion is wrong, that only men and women can procreate and provide mothering and fathering in raising children. They didn't invent those facts. Theists are merely recognizing them."
"Conservatives try to adjust their behaviour to fit the facts of nature. Liberals try to adjust the facts of nature to fit their behaviour."
January 9, 2015
"Stealing from God" details intellectual crimes committed by atheists against God. In the time and age of intellectual property and its rights, this book is a perfect product. The author has found a very clever combination to make his case, he uses CRIMES as an acrostic, each letter in the word represents one or more aspects of reality that wouldn't exist if atheism were true. C = Causality, R= Reason, I = Information and Intentionality, M = Morality, E = Evil, S = Science.
This book is perfect for the intellectual type of atheists, thinkers, those people who overthink things and like to argue, and beat around the bush, and take you on a journey from dinosaurs to DNA research, and they are never satisfied with whatever you answer is. The kind of people who wear you out and make you never want to talk to them about God again. So now, just give them this book. It talks about Darwin, why there is evil if God is good, if New Testament is historically reliable; it discusses neuroscience and human brain, matters of justice and so on and on. "Stealing from God" is a well of good information for an exhausted friend of an atheist.
This book is perfect for the intellectual type of atheists, thinkers, those people who overthink things and like to argue, and beat around the bush, and take you on a journey from dinosaurs to DNA research, and they are never satisfied with whatever you answer is. The kind of people who wear you out and make you never want to talk to them about God again. So now, just give them this book. It talks about Darwin, why there is evil if God is good, if New Testament is historically reliable; it discusses neuroscience and human brain, matters of justice and so on and on. "Stealing from God" is a well of good information for an exhausted friend of an atheist.
July 19, 2019
If, as a Christian, you've ever felt overwhelmed or even just a little bit discouraged by the confidence atheists seem to have in their widely accepted worldview, I HIGHLY encourage you to read this book. You'll never have doubts about the credibility of their arguments again. The evidence presented so clearly and logically in these chapters has strengthened the intellectual side of my faith, and it will strengthen yours too.
This book is just amazing.
This book is just amazing.
August 3, 2021
Oof that was bad.
August 25, 2024
Perhaps as I read this as a non US citizen, my surroundings of a religious debate between theists and atheists is nearly non existent. So perhaps it would be difficult for me to ground my opinion in this debate. However, analysing Turek’s arguments as an outsider, this book is merely a stance of arguments and contradictions of Turek’s own views on atheism.
Throughout this book, Turek puts forward some interesting, and some, controversial arguments as to why atheism uses theists arguments in explaining ‘life’. This comes across at first with an interesting discussion of cause and effect. That nature cannot create nature, so by definition, something supernatural must have created it.
The book however tails off as it moves ever more into challenging Turek’s own assumption of ‘atheism’ by using the word as a cover all for ‘non believers’ in faith, science and in anything, presumably. As a result, the book becomes heavily invested in winning an argument that Turek has created rather than actually engaging in a meaningful discussion.
Furthermore, the ironic arguments that Turek makes are often contradicting. For example, when discussing morality, he argues morality is beyond anything tangible and measurable, and therefore is not measured through science. It is something that has been determined by a higher being. However, in Julian Bagini’s book, The Godless Gospel, he discusses how ‘love’ can be seen as similar to morality, in that it is unmeasurable and intangible (this using Turek’s own argument). However, if this were in fact the case then, by Turek’s own standards of love also being coded / created by a higher being, then love is not something we create ourselves but is gifted to us. Yet, in his book, Turek’s makes it rather clear that he opposes same sex relationships. Yet, by his own standards, surely Love is not something we can then choose and change, it is set by a higher being? And if that were the case, how could Turek deny it?
Overall, this book merely takes a standpoint in a debate that has a strong westernised focus on theism, atheism and religion, and doesn’t stretch beyond a wider analysis. This book attempts to rebuild the view of theism and atheism yet falls into its own traps of ironies and contradictions. From someone who is less involved in a debate between Christian ideology and science, I struggle to see this book anything more than a failed attempt to spark division between two socially constructed westernised views.
Throughout this book, Turek puts forward some interesting, and some, controversial arguments as to why atheism uses theists arguments in explaining ‘life’. This comes across at first with an interesting discussion of cause and effect. That nature cannot create nature, so by definition, something supernatural must have created it.
The book however tails off as it moves ever more into challenging Turek’s own assumption of ‘atheism’ by using the word as a cover all for ‘non believers’ in faith, science and in anything, presumably. As a result, the book becomes heavily invested in winning an argument that Turek has created rather than actually engaging in a meaningful discussion.
Furthermore, the ironic arguments that Turek makes are often contradicting. For example, when discussing morality, he argues morality is beyond anything tangible and measurable, and therefore is not measured through science. It is something that has been determined by a higher being. However, in Julian Bagini’s book, The Godless Gospel, he discusses how ‘love’ can be seen as similar to morality, in that it is unmeasurable and intangible (this using Turek’s own argument). However, if this were in fact the case then, by Turek’s own standards of love also being coded / created by a higher being, then love is not something we create ourselves but is gifted to us. Yet, in his book, Turek’s makes it rather clear that he opposes same sex relationships. Yet, by his own standards, surely Love is not something we can then choose and change, it is set by a higher being? And if that were the case, how could Turek deny it?
Overall, this book merely takes a standpoint in a debate that has a strong westernised focus on theism, atheism and religion, and doesn’t stretch beyond a wider analysis. This book attempts to rebuild the view of theism and atheism yet falls into its own traps of ironies and contradictions. From someone who is less involved in a debate between Christian ideology and science, I struggle to see this book anything more than a failed attempt to spark division between two socially constructed westernised views.
April 29, 2016
I checked this audio book out from one of my library's e-book services.
This presuppositional apologetic book is well written and thought out... except when the author is using straw man arguments and other fallacies to try to make his case... or outright negating his own argument, such as in the section on morality, where he lambasts the actions of leaders such as Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot as evidence of the wrongness of atheism, while playing down Christian atrocities such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Salem Witch Trials with the phrase “you don’t judge a religion or philosophy by its abuse, but by its truths.”... but aren't the previous examples of bad atheism also abuses?
This presuppositional apologetic book is well written and thought out... except when the author is using straw man arguments and other fallacies to try to make his case... or outright negating his own argument, such as in the section on morality, where he lambasts the actions of leaders such as Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot as evidence of the wrongness of atheism, while playing down Christian atrocities such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Salem Witch Trials with the phrase “you don’t judge a religion or philosophy by its abuse, but by its truths.”... but aren't the previous examples of bad atheism also abuses?
September 23, 2025
Overall, a difficult read.
The Christian apologetic who sounded like he did not have a clue what the term "atheism" stands for. Launching an aimless attack on the "new atheist" as if they were a religion. Probing them to provide reasons to support "atheism is true". Atheism is true? What's that even mean?
Anyway, there was a terminological problem by the apologetic asking again and again whether atheism were true. I found too much emphasis on this misstatement by the writer arguing repeatedly that atheist have not been able to make a plausible case against God.
Author could have handled the "burden of proof" matter much much better.
The Christian apologetic who sounded like he did not have a clue what the term "atheism" stands for. Launching an aimless attack on the "new atheist" as if they were a religion. Probing them to provide reasons to support "atheism is true". Atheism is true? What's that even mean?
Anyway, there was a terminological problem by the apologetic asking again and again whether atheism were true. I found too much emphasis on this misstatement by the writer arguing repeatedly that atheist have not been able to make a plausible case against God.
Author could have handled the "burden of proof" matter much much better.
June 7, 2017
Honestly NOT a great read. The premise was intriguing, but mostly I felt that the author simply kept talking in circles. I found it more confusing and roundabout as an argument. Even if they were arguments I tend to agree with, the method of delivery was frustrating to say the least.
October 21, 2015
Frank Turek wrote a very comprehensive and well argued book dissecting deep into the issues that bring atheists and theists at loggerheads. With themes like morality, evil, bad and good, the purpose of God in our lives etc have been dealt with an ease for everyone to understand along with quoting a number of theologians, philosophers and scientists both who are atheists and Christians. He is certainly well read when it comes to giving various arguments to back up his case and why God very much exists. So if you are a religious person, a theist, someone who finds that they are confronted with questions from atheists around you that you can’t seem to address or feel you too need to refresh your faith in God, that being who created this all, then this book is a good read. Although I m not a Christian, but the work of Frank Turek is relevant even if you are a Muslim, Christian or a Jew or simply a believer in an Intelligent Being who created us.
Following are the few things that I have been reflecting on which are especially from the chapter on morality, the idea of evil and good.
In the chapter of morality, the author first presents the incident of a girl’s abduction to make the case of atheists denial of objective moral values. Since atheists do not believe in the existence of God, Turek argues that they cannot then make their moral values when deny a set of objective morals set by a higher force. He talks on the issues of rape, murder and the Nazis to address the idea of justice and the lack of it. Richard Dawkins champions atheism and is of the view that there is no ultimate justice. To this Turek refutes that if there is no justice, there can’t be injustice either. Which means that you or I could commit one wrong after the other and say it is just a matter of opinion and not a matter of injustice or brutality.
For evil to exist, good has to be present and for good to exist, there has to be an Intelligent Being. The argument atheists give is that either God is wicked or that since evil exists in this world, how can there be a God who is passive to all wrong being done. Some also argue that since there is no Designer of this world, our universe is a result of natural forces only, good or bad, good or evil are no concepts. All of these are sensibly refuted by Turek in his book by the way of analogies.
Frank Turek says very aptly that “you don’t judge a religion or philosophy by its abuse, but by its truths.” This caught my attention by way of my being a Muslim and confronted almost every day with a finger being pointed at us and our religion (through media) for someone’s actions elsewhere. I find myself questioning why would someone commit a heinous crime on a large scale in the name of a religion. No matter how many arguments go forward from the Muslim community, no matter how good we are in our daily lives in our interactions( with people of other faiths, deists or atheists) but one act from an extremist hold us responsible for all the evil existing. Interestingly if the culprit turns out to be a while man or woman they are nothing but psychopaths with no relation to Christianity or atheism whatever so ever. There is a clean chit for them, they only psychologically ill which never happens to be the case with people who are unfortunately Muslims by name and origin but not by their practices.
Another interesting thing pointed out by the author is evidence that the number of crimes done by the people of faith over the past 500 years combined is less than the small number of atheists’ actions in the past few years.
The question that often bothers many of us is how does a good God let bad things happen to us. This is the question that atheists often raise as well. Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer, however, contradict their own statements when they opine that parents should have the right to murder their children even after they are born.
So why evil and bad things if there is a God? Again Turek reflected on a Q & A session he had with one of the students where he was presenting. The author said that for evil to stop completely, God would have to take our free will away. With that gone, Turek says, we will also lose our ability to love. Another interesting thing articulated well is that the bad things that happen not as a result of evil done by men but by natural disasters, we as humans learn from the effect of those happenings which brings us closer to our creator. The pain, the loss of someone or something sometimes awakens us to the existence of God.
Quoting from the book, C.S Lewis once said that sometimes people only look up when they are on their back. It is important to realise that God did not send us on this earth merely for pleasure but so that we can understand and know God. Again, how would we distinguish between pleasure if there was never pain or setbacks or loss. I would point out here that Quran also mentions in Surah Mulk that God made this place as a testing place for us to see who does good deeds.
Although there is a difference in Muslim concept of God being a Master and Christianity referring to God as a father, the good humored example does make a point when the author says that God is like a father and not a grandfather who pampers and spoil us out of love. There is a balance in His role, who wants us to learn from our successes and also sometimes from failure (which we could roughly define as pain or loss, injustice)
It may seem I m only quoting from and talking about the issue of morality. Needless to say there’s a lot from the evolutionary process, laws of logic, laws of intentionality, laws of causality and science that all need a mention. However, I will leave it for the readers to explore themselves.
Last but not the least, I would end my rather unexpectedly long post with an analogy of a man with a metal detector from chapter 6 of Science in the book. The guy with the metal detector denies there’s any rubber or plastic material around because his gadget didn’t detect it, little realising the gadget is made of rubber and plastic as well ! Dr Edward Feser identifies this man with the likes of Richard Dawkins who claim that all truth comes from science and if some things science cannot prove, they do not exist. With this point stems a number of other issues that have been discussed in detail in the book.
Interesting fact from the book: Did you know that the single celled Amoeba’s DNA has as much data/information equivalent to a 1000 Britannica Encyclopedia? So if this is not the working of a Designer, an Intelligent being who has existed forever, then who has?
Following are the few things that I have been reflecting on which are especially from the chapter on morality, the idea of evil and good.
In the chapter of morality, the author first presents the incident of a girl’s abduction to make the case of atheists denial of objective moral values. Since atheists do not believe in the existence of God, Turek argues that they cannot then make their moral values when deny a set of objective morals set by a higher force. He talks on the issues of rape, murder and the Nazis to address the idea of justice and the lack of it. Richard Dawkins champions atheism and is of the view that there is no ultimate justice. To this Turek refutes that if there is no justice, there can’t be injustice either. Which means that you or I could commit one wrong after the other and say it is just a matter of opinion and not a matter of injustice or brutality.
For evil to exist, good has to be present and for good to exist, there has to be an Intelligent Being. The argument atheists give is that either God is wicked or that since evil exists in this world, how can there be a God who is passive to all wrong being done. Some also argue that since there is no Designer of this world, our universe is a result of natural forces only, good or bad, good or evil are no concepts. All of these are sensibly refuted by Turek in his book by the way of analogies.
Frank Turek says very aptly that “you don’t judge a religion or philosophy by its abuse, but by its truths.” This caught my attention by way of my being a Muslim and confronted almost every day with a finger being pointed at us and our religion (through media) for someone’s actions elsewhere. I find myself questioning why would someone commit a heinous crime on a large scale in the name of a religion. No matter how many arguments go forward from the Muslim community, no matter how good we are in our daily lives in our interactions( with people of other faiths, deists or atheists) but one act from an extremist hold us responsible for all the evil existing. Interestingly if the culprit turns out to be a while man or woman they are nothing but psychopaths with no relation to Christianity or atheism whatever so ever. There is a clean chit for them, they only psychologically ill which never happens to be the case with people who are unfortunately Muslims by name and origin but not by their practices.
Another interesting thing pointed out by the author is evidence that the number of crimes done by the people of faith over the past 500 years combined is less than the small number of atheists’ actions in the past few years.
The question that often bothers many of us is how does a good God let bad things happen to us. This is the question that atheists often raise as well. Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer, however, contradict their own statements when they opine that parents should have the right to murder their children even after they are born.
So why evil and bad things if there is a God? Again Turek reflected on a Q & A session he had with one of the students where he was presenting. The author said that for evil to stop completely, God would have to take our free will away. With that gone, Turek says, we will also lose our ability to love. Another interesting thing articulated well is that the bad things that happen not as a result of evil done by men but by natural disasters, we as humans learn from the effect of those happenings which brings us closer to our creator. The pain, the loss of someone or something sometimes awakens us to the existence of God.
Quoting from the book, C.S Lewis once said that sometimes people only look up when they are on their back. It is important to realise that God did not send us on this earth merely for pleasure but so that we can understand and know God. Again, how would we distinguish between pleasure if there was never pain or setbacks or loss. I would point out here that Quran also mentions in Surah Mulk that God made this place as a testing place for us to see who does good deeds.
Although there is a difference in Muslim concept of God being a Master and Christianity referring to God as a father, the good humored example does make a point when the author says that God is like a father and not a grandfather who pampers and spoil us out of love. There is a balance in His role, who wants us to learn from our successes and also sometimes from failure (which we could roughly define as pain or loss, injustice)
It may seem I m only quoting from and talking about the issue of morality. Needless to say there’s a lot from the evolutionary process, laws of logic, laws of intentionality, laws of causality and science that all need a mention. However, I will leave it for the readers to explore themselves.
Last but not the least, I would end my rather unexpectedly long post with an analogy of a man with a metal detector from chapter 6 of Science in the book. The guy with the metal detector denies there’s any rubber or plastic material around because his gadget didn’t detect it, little realising the gadget is made of rubber and plastic as well ! Dr Edward Feser identifies this man with the likes of Richard Dawkins who claim that all truth comes from science and if some things science cannot prove, they do not exist. With this point stems a number of other issues that have been discussed in detail in the book.
Interesting fact from the book: Did you know that the single celled Amoeba’s DNA has as much data/information equivalent to a 1000 Britannica Encyclopedia? So if this is not the working of a Designer, an Intelligent being who has existed forever, then who has?
October 14, 2024
This book should be taking up space on everyone’s bookshelf. Stealing from God will show anyone who is willing to follow the evidence where it leads that the belief in God, as well as Christianity, is not rooted in “blind” faith but rather overwhelming evidence and reason.
“Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen.”- Hebrews 11:1
God has left us plenty of evidence in the book of nature (creation) and the Scriptures. If your heart is open, He will reveal to you in your seeking that Christianity is true, and He is who He claimed to be…God in the flesh. He has died so that you may have eternal life in His name.
If you have doubts, read and pray to God, asking him to guide you to the truth, and don’t stop doing that no matter how extreme your doubts may feel. Read books like this that defend the faith. Don’t turn away and adopt a different world view, like Athiesm, not only because it ultimately leads to hopelessness and despair, but also because it’s just downright false.
So always pray, and never stop doing that even if you’re having doubts about Him. Because doubts are just feelings. Trust in God. He will help you, and deliver you from them. Christianity is the most rock solid and meaningful world view, and thats because it’s the truth.
During this read, anytime I had a question raise in my mind, Frank was answering it on the next page. He did his research and thought about the reader while writing this, and I’m thankful for that. I left this book with an urge to dive deeper into learning about the Truth, which is Christ Himself. Needless to say, I highly recommend.
“Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen.”- Hebrews 11:1
God has left us plenty of evidence in the book of nature (creation) and the Scriptures. If your heart is open, He will reveal to you in your seeking that Christianity is true, and He is who He claimed to be…God in the flesh. He has died so that you may have eternal life in His name.
If you have doubts, read and pray to God, asking him to guide you to the truth, and don’t stop doing that no matter how extreme your doubts may feel. Read books like this that defend the faith. Don’t turn away and adopt a different world view, like Athiesm, not only because it ultimately leads to hopelessness and despair, but also because it’s just downright false.
So always pray, and never stop doing that even if you’re having doubts about Him. Because doubts are just feelings. Trust in God. He will help you, and deliver you from them. Christianity is the most rock solid and meaningful world view, and thats because it’s the truth.
During this read, anytime I had a question raise in my mind, Frank was answering it on the next page. He did his research and thought about the reader while writing this, and I’m thankful for that. I left this book with an urge to dive deeper into learning about the Truth, which is Christ Himself. Needless to say, I highly recommend.
February 12, 2024
I've followed Turek for a few years now, but I think this was the first complete book of his that I've read. It was great! He's a theistic evolutionist, but that factors little into this book. This is a great balance of depth and approachability. Turek has a unique ability to debate directly with Hitchens but also relate to students on secular college campuses. He can speak and write for the masses, but he has an incredible mind, and I appreciate anyone who's out on the front lines fighting the way he is.
The arguments he presents seem to have been around a while, but he's added his own twist to them. I think he has a hard time convincing skeptical readers that they are truly stealing from God, and I'm not quite smart enough to get to the BOTTOM of his arguments enough for me to be able to articulate it... but I think I got the essence of the book's title. :) I found myself working through his arguments from a skeptic's perspective, and on the surface, I wasn't seeing what he was trying to say; but when I took the atheist arguments to their full conclusions, I could see why he was saying they inevitably lead to the God of the Bible. The way he got there was just a bit muddy for me.
Overall, an excellent book that I felt was mostly meant to help Christians.
The arguments he presents seem to have been around a while, but he's added his own twist to them. I think he has a hard time convincing skeptical readers that they are truly stealing from God, and I'm not quite smart enough to get to the BOTTOM of his arguments enough for me to be able to articulate it... but I think I got the essence of the book's title. :) I found myself working through his arguments from a skeptic's perspective, and on the surface, I wasn't seeing what he was trying to say; but when I took the atheist arguments to their full conclusions, I could see why he was saying they inevitably lead to the God of the Bible. The way he got there was just a bit muddy for me.
Overall, an excellent book that I felt was mostly meant to help Christians.
October 25, 2021
Turek presents a strong argument that much of what atheists take for granted would not exist if their worldview was correct. The fundamental workings of the universe can only be explained by a Designer who is wholly distinct from His creation. By walking through six different categories where atheists blunder in their logic, Turek gives a sound defense of the Christian faith by debunking atheistic and materialistic assertions.
March 4, 2015
Within the apologetic spectrum there is the fundamentalist evangelicals on the right and than the rather liberal Christian defenders on left. Turek is definitely so far right that he made me uncomfortable with his tone, certitude, lack of understanding of what he opposed and simplicity. I listened to the audiobook and that didn't help, since the narrator had a Christian radio "Positive and Encouraging" voice that was annoying and hard to take seriously.
I did however really like the main point of Turek's book, I just wish it was written by a thinker more in the mid-right side of the apologetic spectrum. Turek showed that again and again philosophical materialism is self-defeating. I liked his example of the man using a plastic metal detector on a beach (naturalistic science), and then confidently asserting there is no plastic (God) on the beach, because his metal detector (scientific method) didn't find any, and not only that but there is no plastic anywhere in the universe, while somehow oblivious to that fact that plastic is in his hands science is excellent at discovering what it is designed to discover, but just because it is so successful doesn't mean that one should claim it is the only way to knowledge.
Turek wrote in his conclusion:
“The law of causality isn't certain...except for theories that seem to affirm atheism
Only material things exist, except for the laws of logic and my immaterial mind that I used to come to that conclusion.
Everything has a physical cause... except my own thoughts and theories about atheism.
God can't be eternal—everything needs a cause... except the universe—it can be eternal.
We don't believe in anything we can't see, hear, touch, smell, or taste... except the multiverse, which we can't see, hear, touch, smell, or taste.
Intentionality doesn't exist... except when I intentionally make a case for atheism.
Nature is not goal-directed... except when I'm doing science and depend on the laws of nature to be consistent;y goal-directed.
No one has free will... except me when I freely arrive at atheistic conclusions.
Consciousness is an illusion... except the consciousness I need to write books that say consciousness is an illusion.
There is no objective morality... except for all of the moral absolutes I advocate (and don't forget that it's objectively immoral for you to impose your moral absolutes on me!)
There is no evil... except when I try to use evil to disprove God.
God is evil...oops, I forgot, there is no evil.
God has no right to kill children.... but I do.
Religion poisons everything... except that atheistic religion I forgot to mention that has murdered millions.
All truth comes from science... except that truth and all the other nonscientific truths I need to do science.
Intelligent design is not science... except when I use it in archaeology, cryptology, biomimetics, and police work, or when I use it to suggest that an alien brought life here.
When you stop at a cause, you stop science... except when you stop at evolution.
The simple can't give rise to the complex... except when it's evolution.
There is no evidence for God... except all that evidence you keep bringing up that I've rulsed inadmissible
Philosophy isn't important to science... except the philosophey I'm using to rig science to always provide atheistic answers.
Unlike religion, science is objective and open to new ideas....except when I use materialistic ideology to harass, demean, and fire you for proposing new ideas.
And so on. For a worldview that prides itself on reason, a look under the covers reveals that atheism is anything but reasonable. It's a self-refuting worldview that steals from God in order to work. An atheist is like someone who claims not to believe in guns, but then steals your gun and tries to shoot you with it. The atheist's hope is that no one will notices.”
The author's section at the end on hell was ridiculous. I suppose for this author, when the bible says that only the righteous will be given immortality and that the wicked will utterly perish like the beast, be consumed, burned up, devoured, destroyed, as though they had never been and killed, that these are all metaphors that mean the opposite of what the bible states, it seems Turek rather believe Plato and other Greek philosophers over the bible, and believe contrary to scripture that the wicked actually will be given immortality, that they'll never perish, that they'll never be consumed, devoured, burned up, destroyed and that they will never die but will be given everlasting life. For the sake of the authors tradition, he completely rejects the clear teaching of the bible. For a list of many scriptures on the topic of hell read my article https://www.facebook.com/notes/john-m...
I did however really like the main point of Turek's book, I just wish it was written by a thinker more in the mid-right side of the apologetic spectrum. Turek showed that again and again philosophical materialism is self-defeating. I liked his example of the man using a plastic metal detector on a beach (naturalistic science), and then confidently asserting there is no plastic (God) on the beach, because his metal detector (scientific method) didn't find any, and not only that but there is no plastic anywhere in the universe, while somehow oblivious to that fact that plastic is in his hands science is excellent at discovering what it is designed to discover, but just because it is so successful doesn't mean that one should claim it is the only way to knowledge.
Turek wrote in his conclusion:
“The law of causality isn't certain...except for theories that seem to affirm atheism
Only material things exist, except for the laws of logic and my immaterial mind that I used to come to that conclusion.
Everything has a physical cause... except my own thoughts and theories about atheism.
God can't be eternal—everything needs a cause... except the universe—it can be eternal.
We don't believe in anything we can't see, hear, touch, smell, or taste... except the multiverse, which we can't see, hear, touch, smell, or taste.
Intentionality doesn't exist... except when I intentionally make a case for atheism.
Nature is not goal-directed... except when I'm doing science and depend on the laws of nature to be consistent;y goal-directed.
No one has free will... except me when I freely arrive at atheistic conclusions.
Consciousness is an illusion... except the consciousness I need to write books that say consciousness is an illusion.
There is no objective morality... except for all of the moral absolutes I advocate (and don't forget that it's objectively immoral for you to impose your moral absolutes on me!)
There is no evil... except when I try to use evil to disprove God.
God is evil...oops, I forgot, there is no evil.
God has no right to kill children.... but I do.
Religion poisons everything... except that atheistic religion I forgot to mention that has murdered millions.
All truth comes from science... except that truth and all the other nonscientific truths I need to do science.
Intelligent design is not science... except when I use it in archaeology, cryptology, biomimetics, and police work, or when I use it to suggest that an alien brought life here.
When you stop at a cause, you stop science... except when you stop at evolution.
The simple can't give rise to the complex... except when it's evolution.
There is no evidence for God... except all that evidence you keep bringing up that I've rulsed inadmissible
Philosophy isn't important to science... except the philosophey I'm using to rig science to always provide atheistic answers.
Unlike religion, science is objective and open to new ideas....except when I use materialistic ideology to harass, demean, and fire you for proposing new ideas.
And so on. For a worldview that prides itself on reason, a look under the covers reveals that atheism is anything but reasonable. It's a self-refuting worldview that steals from God in order to work. An atheist is like someone who claims not to believe in guns, but then steals your gun and tries to shoot you with it. The atheist's hope is that no one will notices.”
The author's section at the end on hell was ridiculous. I suppose for this author, when the bible says that only the righteous will be given immortality and that the wicked will utterly perish like the beast, be consumed, burned up, devoured, destroyed, as though they had never been and killed, that these are all metaphors that mean the opposite of what the bible states, it seems Turek rather believe Plato and other Greek philosophers over the bible, and believe contrary to scripture that the wicked actually will be given immortality, that they'll never perish, that they'll never be consumed, devoured, burned up, destroyed and that they will never die but will be given everlasting life. For the sake of the authors tradition, he completely rejects the clear teaching of the bible. For a list of many scriptures on the topic of hell read my article https://www.facebook.com/notes/john-m...
February 16, 2015
Turek uses logic and other elementary philosophical devices to stand the standard Atheist arguments on their head, arguing that Atheism, and not Theism, is a creed that rests on blind faith. Despite liberal use of exclamation points, he does so brilliantly; it's an outstanding resource for any Christian apologist.
The book is divided into two parts: the first makes the case that there must be a deity; otherwise, the philosophical underpinnings of philosophy and science make no sense. The second part deals with Christianity per se, making use of mostly historical and documentary evidence. Each part may be read on its own; neither depends on the other.
All in all, well worth reading for anyone needing intellectual tools to battle the increased secularization we see in Western society.
The book is divided into two parts: the first makes the case that there must be a deity; otherwise, the philosophical underpinnings of philosophy and science make no sense. The second part deals with Christianity per se, making use of mostly historical and documentary evidence. Each part may be read on its own; neither depends on the other.
All in all, well worth reading for anyone needing intellectual tools to battle the increased secularization we see in Western society.
September 30, 2018
من أفضل الكتب التي قرأتها في الرد على الإلحاد .
فكرة الكتاب الأساسية
أن الملحدين حينما يحاولون إنكار وجود إله يستعملون أفكارا وحججا ليس لها أي قيمة إلا إذا كان هناك إله...
فهم يسرقون حججا من العالم الذي خلقه الإله لكي يثبتوا أنه لا يوجد إله
الكتاب فيه درس منطقي قوي في طريقة تهافت حجج الملحدين منطقيا
ويؤكد أن حججهم تقع في إشكالية منطقية وهي الحجة التي تدمر نفسها.
self-defeating argument.
مثل القول: ليس هناك حقيقة ثابتة بل هي مجرد رؤي شخصية
فهذي المقولة نفسها تدمر نفسها فيقال هل هذه المقولة ثابتة ؟
فلو كانت المقولة صحيحة فالمقولة نفسها خاطئة
تناقض.
الكتاب لطيف وفيه فقرات غاية في الأهمية ولغته جميلة وممتعة
المؤلف وهو يرد على الملحدين يؤسس لبعض الأفكار المسيحية فلابد من الانتباه.
فكرة الكتاب الأساسية
أن الملحدين حينما يحاولون إنكار وجود إله يستعملون أفكارا وحججا ليس لها أي قيمة إلا إذا كان هناك إله...
فهم يسرقون حججا من العالم الذي خلقه الإله لكي يثبتوا أنه لا يوجد إله
الكتاب فيه درس منطقي قوي في طريقة تهافت حجج الملحدين منطقيا
ويؤكد أن حججهم تقع في إشكالية منطقية وهي الحجة التي تدمر نفسها.
self-defeating argument.
مثل القول: ليس هناك حقيقة ثابتة بل هي مجرد رؤي شخصية
فهذي المقولة نفسها تدمر نفسها فيقال هل هذه المقولة ثابتة ؟
فلو كانت المقولة صحيحة فالمقولة نفسها خاطئة
تناقض.
الكتاب لطيف وفيه فقرات غاية في الأهمية ولغته جميلة وممتعة
المؤلف وهو يرد على الملحدين يؤسس لبعض الأفكار المسيحية فلابد من الانتباه.
June 21, 2018
As someone involved in full time college ministry, this book is invaluable. The presentation is easy to understand and the information which Turek presents is necessary!
I gave it 5 stars even though there are a few moments where Turek comes off as condescending, but that may be also a side effect of his passion that all men would see their errors and come to Christ.
I gave it 5 stars even though there are a few moments where Turek comes off as condescending, but that may be also a side effect of his passion that all men would see their errors and come to Christ.
January 29, 2015
Really, really good. Logically and with such precision, turns atheistic arguments on their heads.
June 2, 2017
Excellent book for the seeking mind. It's amazing how all creation points to the existence of an unmoved mover.
Great book for the thinking Christian and the searching atheist.
Great book for the thinking Christian and the searching atheist.
October 7, 2020
“The law of causality isn't certain...except for theories that seem to affirm atheism
Only material things exist, except for the laws of logic and my immaterial mind that I used to come to that conclusion.
Everything has a physical cause... except my own thoughts and theories about atheism.
God can't be eternal—everything needs a cause... except the universe—it can be eternal.
We don't believe in anything we can't see, hear, touch, smell, or taste... except the multiverse, which we can't see, hear, touch, smell, or taste.
Intentionality doesn't exist... except when I intentionally make a case for atheism.
Nature is not goal-directed... except when I'm doing science and depend on the laws of nature to be consistent;y goal-directed.
No one has free will... except me when I freely arrive at atheistic conclusions.
Consciousness is an illusion... except the consciousness I need to write books that say consciousness is an illusion.
There is no objective morality... except for all of the moral absolutes I advocate (and don't forget that it's objectively immoral for you to impose your moral absolutes on me!)
There is no evil... except when I try to use evil to disprove God.
God is evil...oops, I forgot, there is no evil.
God has no right to kill children.... but I do.
Religion poisons everything... except that atheistic religion I forgot to mention that has murdered millions.
All truth comes from science... except that truth and all the other nonscientific truths I need to do science.
Intelligent design is not science... except when I use it in archaeology, cryptology, biomimetics, and police work, or when I use it to suggest that an alien brought life here.
When you stop at a cause, you stop science... except when you stop at evolution.
The simple can't give rise to the complex... except when it's evolution.
There is no evidence for God... except all that evidence you keep bringing up that I've ruled inadmissible
Philosophy isn't important to science... except the philosophy I'm using to rig science to always provide atheistic answers.
Unlike religion, science is objective and open to new ideas....except when I use materialistic ideology to harass, demean, and fire you for proposing new ideas."
Only material things exist, except for the laws of logic and my immaterial mind that I used to come to that conclusion.
Everything has a physical cause... except my own thoughts and theories about atheism.
God can't be eternal—everything needs a cause... except the universe—it can be eternal.
We don't believe in anything we can't see, hear, touch, smell, or taste... except the multiverse, which we can't see, hear, touch, smell, or taste.
Intentionality doesn't exist... except when I intentionally make a case for atheism.
Nature is not goal-directed... except when I'm doing science and depend on the laws of nature to be consistent;y goal-directed.
No one has free will... except me when I freely arrive at atheistic conclusions.
Consciousness is an illusion... except the consciousness I need to write books that say consciousness is an illusion.
There is no objective morality... except for all of the moral absolutes I advocate (and don't forget that it's objectively immoral for you to impose your moral absolutes on me!)
There is no evil... except when I try to use evil to disprove God.
God is evil...oops, I forgot, there is no evil.
God has no right to kill children.... but I do.
Religion poisons everything... except that atheistic religion I forgot to mention that has murdered millions.
All truth comes from science... except that truth and all the other nonscientific truths I need to do science.
Intelligent design is not science... except when I use it in archaeology, cryptology, biomimetics, and police work, or when I use it to suggest that an alien brought life here.
When you stop at a cause, you stop science... except when you stop at evolution.
The simple can't give rise to the complex... except when it's evolution.
There is no evidence for God... except all that evidence you keep bringing up that I've ruled inadmissible
Philosophy isn't important to science... except the philosophy I'm using to rig science to always provide atheistic answers.
Unlike religion, science is objective and open to new ideas....except when I use materialistic ideology to harass, demean, and fire you for proposing new ideas."
January 2, 2022
This book succinctly and definitively rebukes atheism and reveals what it truly is. I really enjoy books that say the obvious things out loud and that follow the logic where it leads. If you are an atheist, this book ought to be challenging and you should take the challenge and read it.
My one problem with the book is Turek’s Arminianism. His answer to the problem of evil is that God can’t make people love Him which is not at all anything the bible teaches. He goes on and on about free will and it is really sickening. The bible says that we are dead in our trespasses and sin and do not ever choose God. God CAN do all things and has chosen to save some for His own sake and has bestowed love on those who could not ever choose him. He makes us alive and once that has happened our wills are captive to Him instead of our sin. It doesn’t seem like a huge distinction but you can see how this theology makes a mess out of the problem of evil and why people go to Hell.
Gloss over all of that stuff in this book and you will have a very sound argument against atheism and for Christianity.
My one problem with the book is Turek’s Arminianism. His answer to the problem of evil is that God can’t make people love Him which is not at all anything the bible teaches. He goes on and on about free will and it is really sickening. The bible says that we are dead in our trespasses and sin and do not ever choose God. God CAN do all things and has chosen to save some for His own sake and has bestowed love on those who could not ever choose him. He makes us alive and once that has happened our wills are captive to Him instead of our sin. It doesn’t seem like a huge distinction but you can see how this theology makes a mess out of the problem of evil and why people go to Hell.
Gloss over all of that stuff in this book and you will have a very sound argument against atheism and for Christianity.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 200 reviews