Read Online On Guard Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision edition by William Lane Craig Lee Strobel Religion Spirituality eBooks
![]()
Download As PDF : On Guard Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision edition by William Lane Craig Lee Strobel Religion Spirituality eBooks
Renowned scholar William Lane Craig offers a readable, rich training manual for defending the Christian faith.
This concise guide is filled with illustrations, sidebars, and memorizable steps to help Christians stand their ground and defend their faith with reason and precision. In his engaging style, Dr. Craig offers four arguments for God’s existence, defends the historicity of Jesus’ personal claims and resurrection, addresses the problem of suffering, and shows why religious relativism doesn’t work. Along the way, he shares his story of following God’s call in his own life.
This one-stop, how-to-defend-your-faith manual will equip Christians to advance faith conversations deliberately, applying straightforward, cool-headed arguments. They will discover not just what they believe, but why they believe—and how being on guard with the truth has the power to change lives forever.
Read Online On Guard Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision edition by William Lane Craig Lee Strobel Religion Spirituality eBooks
"William Lane Craig (b. 1949) is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. He is also a prominent philosophical apologist (see his debates with atheists, such as
God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist and
Does God Exist: The Craig-Flew Debate), and author of books such as
Reasonable Faith,
A Reasonable Response: Answers to Tough Questions on God, Christianity, and the Bible,
Hard Questions, Real Answers,
No Easy Answers, etc.
He wrote in the first chapter of this 2010 book, “This book is intended to be a sort of training manual to equip you to fulfill the command of 1 Peter 3:15. So this is a book to be STUDIED, not just read. You’ll find several arguments that I’ve put into easily memorizable steps. In discussing each argument, I’ll present a reason (or several reasons) to think that each step in the argument is true. Then I’ll discuss the usual objections to each step and show you how to answer them. In that way you’ll be prepared in advance for possible questions you might meet in sharing your faith.†(Pg. 24)
He states, “My claim is that if there is no God, then meaning, value, and purpose are ultimately human illusions. They’re just in our heads. If atheism is true, then life is really objectively meaningless, valueless, and purposeless, despite our subjective beliefs to the contrary… given atheism, these beliefs are all subjective illusions: the mere APPEARANCE of meaning, value, and purpose, even though, objectively speaking, there really isn’t any… If God does not exist, then both man and the universe are inevitably doomed to death… With no hope of immortality, man’s life leads only to the grave.†(Pg. 30-31)
He argues, “If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God… It follows that if the universe has a cause of its existence, that cause must be a nonphysical, immaterial being beyond space and time… Now there are only two sorts of things that could fit that description: either an abstract object like a number or else an unembodied mind. But abstract objects can’t cause anything… So the cause of the universe must be a transcendent Mind, which is what believers understand God to be.†(Pg. 59)
He presents the “Hilbert’s Hotel†illustration, and comments, “Hilbert’s Hotel is absurd… the argument can be generalized to show that the existence of an actually infinite number of things is absurd… Infinite set theory is a highly developed and well-understood branch of modern mathematics. The absurdities result because we DO understand the nature of the actual infinite… Sometimes critics will … [say] that if an actual infinite could exist, then such situations are exactly what we should expect. But… Hilbert would, of course, agree that IF an actual infinite could exist, the situation with his imaginary hotel is what we should expect… But the question is whether such a hotel is really possible… it shows that the number of past events must be finite. Therefore, the universe must have had a beginning.†(Pg. 82-83)
He points out, “Sometimes scientists do talk of a yet-to-be-discovered ‘theory of everything’ (TOE)… [But] the label is very misleading… the most promising candidate for a TOE to date, so-called M-theory or superstring theory, only works if there are eleven dimensions. But the theory itself can’t explain why just that particular number of dimensions should exist. Moreover, M-theory doesn’t predict uniquely a life-permitting universe. It permits a vast range of … different possible universes… Almost all of these possible universes are life-prohibiting. So some explanation is needed why out of all these possibilities, a life-permitting universe exists… all the evidence indicates that life-prohibiting universes are … far more likely than any life-permitting universe.†(Pg. 112-113)
He asserts, “[Richard] Dawkins’ … atheistic conclusion, ‘Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist,’ doesn’t follow from the six previous statements… At most, all that follows from Dawkins’ argument is that we should not infer God’s existence on the basis of the appearance of design in the universe. But that conclusion is quit compatible with God’s existence and even with our justifiably believing in God’s existence… rejecting design arguments for God’s existence does nothing to prove that atheism is true or that belief in God is unjustified.†(Pg. 120-121)
He says of Plato’s Euthyphro Dilemma, “There’s a third alternative, namely, God wills something because He is good… God’s own nature is the standard of goodness, and His commandments to us are expressions of His nature. In short, our moral duties are determined by the commands of a just and loving God. So moral values are not independent of God because God’s own character defines what is good… His nature is the moral standard defining good and bad. His commands necessarily reflect His moral nature. Therefore, they’re not arbitrary… God wills something because He is good, and something is right because God wills it.†(Pg. 135-136)
About the Problem of Evil, he states, “for all we know, it’s possible that in any world of free persons with as much good as this world, there would also be as much suffering. This conjecture need not be true or even probable, but so long as it’s even LOGICALLY POSSIBLE, it shows that it is not necessarily true that God can create any world that He wants… God could have overriding reasons for allowing the suffering in the world… It may well be the case that a world with no suffering is, on balance, better overall than a world with no suffering. In any case, it is at least POSSIBLE, and that is sufficient to defeat the atheist’s claim… He would have to show that … it’s impossible that a world with suffering would be better than a world with no suffering.†(Pg. 156-157)
He says, “don’t be misled by unbelievers who want to quibble about inconsistencies in the circumstantial details in the gospel accounts… minor discrepancies don’t affect our case. Historians expect to find inconsistencies even in the most reliable sources. No historian simply throws out a source because it has inconsistencies… Moreover, in this case the inconsistencies aren’t even within a single source; they’re between independent sources. But obviously, it doesn’t follow from an inconsistency between two independent sources that both are wrong. At worst, one is wrong if they can’t be harmonized.†(Pg. 243-244)
Of Hell, he suggests, “in a sense, God doesn’t SEND anybody to hell… It’s a matter of our free choice where we shall spend eternity. Those who are lost… separate themselves from God despite God’s will and every effort to save them… Now the pluralist… might argue, it would be unjust of God to condemn such people FOREVER… Now, of course, nobody commits an infinite number of sins in this earthly life. But what about in the afterlife?... the inhabitants of hell… continue to sin and so accrue to themselves more guilt and more punishment. In a real sense, then, hell is SELF-PERPETUATING.†(Pg. 272-273)
He continues, “But perhaps the problem is supposed to be that … People who have never heard of Christ or have been given a distorted picture of Christ can’t be expected to place their faith in Christ. But… God doesn’t judge people who have never heard of Christ on the basis of whether they’ve placed their faith in Christ. Rather God judges them on the basis of the light of God’s general revelation… there could be modern-day Jobs living among that percentage of the world’s population that has yet to hear the gospel of Christ. Unfortunately, the testimony of the New Testament… is that people don’t generally measure up even to these much lower standards of general revelation. So there are little grounds for optimism about there being many people, if any at all, who will actually be saved through their response to general revelation alone.†(Pg. 274-275)
He goes on, “It’s reasonable to assume that many people who never hear the gospel wouldn’t have believed the gospel even if they had heard it. Suppose, then, that God in His mercy has so providentially ordered the world that ALL persons who never hear the gospel are precisely such people. God is too good to allow someone to be lost due to historical or geographical accident… Thus, its’ possible that: … God has created a world that has an optimal balance between saved and lost, and those who never hear the gospel and are lost would not have believed even if they had heard it.†(Pg. 278-279) He answers the question, ‘Why didn’t God bring the gospel to people who He knew would accept it if they had heard it?’ by stating, ‘There are no such people’!†(Pg. 280)
This is a marvelous compilation of the “best†of Dr. Craig’s arguments---distilled over decades of debates with the most famous atheists and nonchristians in the world. It is “must reading†for anyone seriously studying Christian apologetics."
Product details - File Size 16802 KB
- Print Length 288 pages
- Publisher David C Cook; New edition (March 1, 2010)
- Publication Date March 1, 2010
- Sold by Digital Services LLC
- Language English
- ASIN B005SJ19VM
|
Tags : On Guard Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision - edition by William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel. Download it once and read it on your device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading On Guard Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision.,ebook,William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel,On Guard Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision,David C Cook,Apologetics,Apologetics.,Christian Life - Spiritual Growth,Christian life practice,General Adult,Inspirational/Devotional - Christian,Non-Fiction,RELIGION / Christian Education / Adult,RELIGION / Christian Living / Spiritual Growth,RELIGION / Christian Ministry / Evangelism,RELIGION / Christian Theology / Apologetics,RELIGION / Comparative Religion,RELIGIOUS,Religion,Religion - Inspirational/Spirituality,Religion/Christian Living - Spiritual Growth,Religion/Ethics,biblical theology; biblical apologetics; apologetics course; christian worldview,christian apologetics; apologetics books; books on christianity; bible apologetics,christian apologetics; apologetics books; books on christianity; bible apologetics; biblical theology; biblical apologetics; apologetics course; christian worldview,Christian Life - Spiritual Growth,RELIGION / Christian Education / Adult,RELIGION / Christian Living / Spiritual Growth,RELIGION / Christian Ministry / Evangelism,RELIGION / Christian Theology / Apologetics,RELIGION / Comparative Religion,Religion/Christian Living - Spiritual Growth,Religion - Inspirational/Spirituality,Religion,Christian life practice
On Guard Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision edition by William Lane Craig Lee Strobel Religion Spirituality eBooks Reviews :
On Guard Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision edition by William Lane Craig Lee Strobel Religion Spirituality eBooks Reviews
- William Lane Craig (b. 1949) is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. He is also a prominent philosophical apologist (see his debates with atheists, such as God? A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist and Does God Exist The Craig-Flew Debate), and author of books such as Reasonable Faith,A Reasonable Response Answers to Tough Questions on God, Christianity, and the Bible,Hard Questions, Real Answers,No Easy Answers, etc.
He wrote in the first chapter of this 2010 book, “This book is intended to be a sort of training manual to equip you to fulfill the command of 1 Peter 315. So this is a book to be STUDIED, not just read. You’ll find several arguments that I’ve put into easily memorizable steps. In discussing each argument, I’ll present a reason (or several reasons) to think that each step in the argument is true. Then I’ll discuss the usual objections to each step and show you how to answer them. In that way you’ll be prepared in advance for possible questions you might meet in sharing your faith.†(Pg. 24)
He states, “My claim is that if there is no God, then meaning, value, and purpose are ultimately human illusions. They’re just in our heads. If atheism is true, then life is really objectively meaningless, valueless, and purposeless, despite our subjective beliefs to the contrary… given atheism, these beliefs are all subjective illusions the mere APPEARANCE of meaning, value, and purpose, even though, objectively speaking, there really isn’t any… If God does not exist, then both man and the universe are inevitably doomed to death… With no hope of immortality, man’s life leads only to the grave.†(Pg. 30-31)
He argues, “If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God… It follows that if the universe has a cause of its existence, that cause must be a nonphysical, immaterial being beyond space and time… Now there are only two sorts of things that could fit that description either an abstract object like a number or else an unembodied mind. But abstract objects can’t cause anything… So the cause of the universe must be a transcendent Mind, which is what believers understand God to be.†(Pg. 59)
He presents the “Hilbert’s Hotel†illustration, and comments, “Hilbert’s Hotel is absurd… the argument can be generalized to show that the existence of an actually infinite number of things is absurd… Infinite set theory is a highly developed and well-understood branch of modern mathematics. The absurdities result because we DO understand the nature of the actual infinite… Sometimes critics will … [say] that if an actual infinite could exist, then such situations are exactly what we should expect. But… Hilbert would, of course, agree that IF an actual infinite could exist, the situation with his imaginary hotel is what we should expect… But the question is whether such a hotel is really possible… it shows that the number of past events must be finite. Therefore, the universe must have had a beginning.†(Pg. 82-83)
He points out, “Sometimes scientists do talk of a yet-to-be-discovered ‘theory of everything’ (TOE)… [But] the label is very misleading… the most promising candidate for a TOE to date, so-called M-theory or superstring theory, only works if there are eleven dimensions. But the theory itself can’t explain why just that particular number of dimensions should exist. Moreover, M-theory doesn’t predict uniquely a life-permitting universe. It permits a vast range of … different possible universes… Almost all of these possible universes are life-prohibiting. So some explanation is needed why out of all these possibilities, a life-permitting universe exists… all the evidence indicates that life-prohibiting universes are … far more likely than any life-permitting universe.†(Pg. 112-113)
He asserts, “[Richard] Dawkins’ … atheistic conclusion, ‘Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist,’ doesn’t follow from the six previous statements… At most, all that follows from Dawkins’ argument is that we should not infer God’s existence on the basis of the appearance of design in the universe. But that conclusion is quit compatible with God’s existence and even with our justifiably believing in God’s existence… rejecting design arguments for God’s existence does nothing to prove that atheism is true or that belief in God is unjustified.†(Pg. 120-121)
He says of Plato’s Euthyphro Dilemma, “There’s a third alternative, namely, God wills something because He is good… God’s own nature is the standard of goodness, and His commandments to us are expressions of His nature. In short, our moral duties are determined by the commands of a just and loving God. So moral values are not independent of God because God’s own character defines what is good… His nature is the moral standard defining good and bad. His commands necessarily reflect His moral nature. Therefore, they’re not arbitrary… God wills something because He is good, and something is right because God wills it.†(Pg. 135-136)
About the Problem of Evil, he states, “for all we know, it’s possible that in any world of free persons with as much good as this world, there would also be as much suffering. This conjecture need not be true or even probable, but so long as it’s even LOGICALLY POSSIBLE, it shows that it is not necessarily true that God can create any world that He wants… God could have overriding reasons for allowing the suffering in the world… It may well be the case that a world with no suffering is, on balance, better overall than a world with no suffering. In any case, it is at least POSSIBLE, and that is sufficient to defeat the atheist’s claim… He would have to show that … it’s impossible that a world with suffering would be better than a world with no suffering.†(Pg. 156-157)
He says, “don’t be misled by unbelievers who want to quibble about inconsistencies in the circumstantial details in the gospel accounts… minor discrepancies don’t affect our case. Historians expect to find inconsistencies even in the most reliable sources. No historian simply throws out a source because it has inconsistencies… Moreover, in this case the inconsistencies aren’t even within a single source; they’re between independent sources. But obviously, it doesn’t follow from an inconsistency between two independent sources that both are wrong. At worst, one is wrong if they can’t be harmonized.†(Pg. 243-244)
Of Hell, he suggests, “in a sense, God doesn’t SEND anybody to hell… It’s a matter of our free choice where we shall spend eternity. Those who are lost… separate themselves from God despite God’s will and every effort to save them… Now the pluralist… might argue, it would be unjust of God to condemn such people FOREVER… Now, of course, nobody commits an infinite number of sins in this earthly life. But what about in the afterlife?... the inhabitants of hell… continue to sin and so accrue to themselves more guilt and more punishment. In a real sense, then, hell is SELF-PERPETUATING.†(Pg. 272-273)
He continues, “But perhaps the problem is supposed to be that … People who have never heard of Christ or have been given a distorted picture of Christ can’t be expected to place their faith in Christ. But… God doesn’t judge people who have never heard of Christ on the basis of whether they’ve placed their faith in Christ. Rather God judges them on the basis of the light of God’s general revelation… there could be modern-day Jobs living among that percentage of the world’s population that has yet to hear the gospel of Christ. Unfortunately, the testimony of the New Testament… is that people don’t generally measure up even to these much lower standards of general revelation. So there are little grounds for optimism about there being many people, if any at all, who will actually be saved through their response to general revelation alone.†(Pg. 274-275)
He goes on, “It’s reasonable to assume that many people who never hear the gospel wouldn’t have believed the gospel even if they had heard it. Suppose, then, that God in His mercy has so providentially ordered the world that ALL persons who never hear the gospel are precisely such people. God is too good to allow someone to be lost due to historical or geographical accident… Thus, its’ possible that … God has created a world that has an optimal balance between saved and lost, and those who never hear the gospel and are lost would not have believed even if they had heard it.†(Pg. 278-279) He answers the question, ‘Why didn’t God bring the gospel to people who He knew would accept it if they had heard it?’ by stating, ‘There are no such people’!†(Pg. 280)
This is a marvelous compilation of the “best†of Dr. Craig’s arguments---distilled over decades of debates with the most famous atheists and nonchristians in the world. It is “must reading†for anyone seriously studying Christian apologetics. - I read this book about 2 weeks ago, and it is nothing short of what I expected that is, a book that would practically yet powerfully make arguments for the existence of God and - more importantly - gateway into the person of Jesus Christ. Theism is the richest worldview not because it adds the greatest quantity of explanations (indeed, gods like Zeus or Thor or Allah fail to add any explanation) - but because it offers one explanation the person of Jesus Christ; by Him, the personable attachment of theism is enabled.
This book therefore brings us first into the logical possibility of theism by grounding arguments, simply put, in God. The reader will essentially learn why the theistic worldview is most coherent in general. Afterwards, the final chapters will speak on the person of Jesus Christ to make a "fully" coherent view. Without a personal deity, theism simply becomes empty, like a well that cannot supply water Deism.
However, holding to Deism after reading this book will almost certainly make little sense. The arguments alone from the cosmological argument provide us with erudite reason to believe the cause before us was, as well, personal. Indeed, the entire argument before the Christian chapters in this book point towards a personal deity in general.
Consequently, we are left with the choice of picking up 4 different sponges to clear up the black sludge on the window of reality after reading this book. 1) We may choose to pick up the water-less sponge of atheism and find ourselves with no success in our attempt. 2) Or we may pick up the agnostic sponge and find ourselves able to clear up only half of the window. 3) We may even boldly pick up the deistic sponge and clear 3 quarters of the window. 4) But only will we have enough soapy water in the theistic sponge to clear up the entire window of reality.
And once we do that, we will undoubtedly find not only God's image in the window but, as well, Jesus Christ's.
This is arguably the greatest friend-sharing friendly and user-reading friendly book I've read on Christian apologetics. You'll remember many things to apply in real-world discussion. It helped me with many of my own doubts. - The book is devoted to arguments for proving that there is a god. Not God, but a god. Rather than pointing to the triune God of the Bible as the only rational explanation for all things, Craig's arguments could just as easily point to Ganesh or Allah. In fact an entire chapter is devoted to explaining that Craig's primary argument, the cosmological argument, originated with a Muslim philosopher in the Eleventh Century. That is inadequate. Even if it convinces a person of theism, that is not a saving belief. I know that someone will interject, "My friend Bobby So-and-So was converted by listening to Craig in a debate." However, that merely proves that the Holy Spirit is not limited by the failings of men.
One particular error that Craig makes, and the source, I think, of his inadequate stand, is his misquoting of Romans. He refers to Romans 118-22, and says that God has revealed Himself in Creation (see Psalm 191-4) in such a way that anyone CAN know of His existence. But that isn't what it says. It says that every person DOES know of His existence. That is why every non-Christian worldview is irrational; the unbeliever is trying to avoid awareness of what he knows to be true.
Craig's apologetic, based on that faulty understanding, can only result in a faulty understanding in his audience, apart from the overruling providence of the Holy Spirit.
