What is the case for a creator by Lee Stobel about?
375044
From amazon.com:\n\n"Editorial Reviews\n\nAmazon.com\nAre Christianity and science incompatible? If there is a God, is he only an impersonal starter force? An introductory high school biology class first propelled Lee Strobel toward a life of atheism. God and science, he reasoned, were mutually exclusive. When the former legal editor of the Chicago Tribune converted to Christianity, he decided to investigate the science he had once accepted as truth. Did science point toward or away from God? As Strobel interviews a variety of scientists on everything from debunking evolutionary icons to the implications of the Big Bang to the existence of the human soul, he builds his case: scientific evidence points toward Intelligent Design. \nAlthough the discussion often veers into the academic, Strobel works hard to make it accessible to those without scientific training. Throughout the book, he salts interview transcript information with interesting personal stories of his own spiritual and scientific quest for knowledge, as well as sometimes over-detailed descriptions of the actual interviews (right down to the type of beverages consumed). Each chapter contains suggestions for further reading on particular issues of science and faith. \n\nStrobel concludes that, when correctly interpreted, science and biblical teaching support each other. He quotes physicist Paul Davies, "…science offers a surer path to God than religion." Open-minded readers will find that this book, and its questions for reflection and group study, invites conversation and investigation.--Cindy Crosby \n\nFrom Publishers Weekly\nStrobel, whose apologetics titles The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith have enjoyed strong popularity among evangelicals, approaches creation/evolution issues in the same simple and energetic style. The format will be familiar to readers of previous Case books: Strobel visits with scholars and researchers and works each interview into a topical outline. Although Strobel does not interview any "hostile" witnesses, he exposes readers to the work of some major origins researchers (including Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe) and theistic philosophers (including William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland). Strobel claims no expertise in science or metaphysics, but as an interviewer he makes this an asset, prodding his sources to translate jargon and provide illustrations for their arguments. At times, the interview format loses momentum as seams begin to show between interview recordings, rewrites, research notes and details imported from his subjects' CVs (here, Strobel's efforts at buffing his subjects' smart-guy credentials can become a little too intense). The most curious feature of the book—not uncommon in the origins literature but unusual in a work of Christian apologetics—is that biblical narratives and images of creation, and the significance of creation for Christian theology, receive such brief mention. Still, this solid introduction to the most important topics in origins debates is highly accessible and packs a good argumentative punch. "
26363
I tend to agree with what you are saying.\nIf there is a creator I suspect that moving away from the creator is moving toward darkness.\n\nIf there is a creator I suspect that creator is not as rathful and harsh as some would suggest. If God, from whatever religious system, is truth then God would want us to look for the truth.\n\nIn my opinion God would want peopele to question, to look for truth. Some of the most brilliant people in history were not sure what God was about - folks like Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson and others.\n\nI think that God would be sort of annoyed with folks who just followed the teachings of whatever group they were a part of without asking questions and deciding for themselves. That thing that happened in Gianna with the cool aid, David Koresh, folks who blow themselves up who don't get the fact that God is about peace.
923889
And by accident. No purpose, no meaning, no plan, no design. Funny isn't to think that all that is, is nothing at all. Just one big mess of an accident that.\n\nKind of like looking at a big building and wondering how did that get there. Building, builder, Creation, Creator. Man that is so hard to understand. I don't need to know who the builder was but if I see a building then I know that there was also a builder. I see creation I also know that there was a creator.
635811
I believe it is someone trying to make money off a fictional book that he wrote.  Which, by the way, is a good book.\n\nPrayers to you and yours.  <><
622606
Some would ask, how could a perfect God create a universe filled with so much that is evil. They have missed a greater conundrum: why would a perfect God create a universe at all? \n\nSister Miriam Godwinson \n"But for the Grace of God" \n\n--Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.\n\nCause GOD'S NOT PERFECT!\nHe makes mistakes, just as we do, mut since he has more power, when he screws up, it SUCKS for us.
597547
Its a Book by Dan Brown\n\nwww.danbrown.com
287579
you need to use another example instead of your creator. the uncreated cannot define the creator's characteristics. it only works the other way 'round. have fun though.
943478
Ah yes.... the uncaused causer...\n\nBy raising the question of the need for a designer for objects with irreducible complexity, intelligent design also raises the question, "what designed the designer?" Richard Dawkins has argued that "If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer. And it's no solution to raise the theologian's plea that God (or the intelligent designer) is simply immune to the normal demands of scientific explanation," since such an answer would be unscientific. With religious creationism, the question "what created God?" can be answered with theological arguments, but in intelligent design, the chain of designers can be followed back indefinitely in an infinite regression, leaving the question of the creation of the first designer dangling. As a result, intelligent design does not explain how the complexity happened in the first place; it just moves it.\n\nElliott Sober says that by intelligent design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex: "Any mind in nature that designs and builds an irreducibly complex system is itself irreducibly complex" Sober says that this an argument that intelligent design proponents still need to respond to.\n\nIf intelligent design proponents invoke an uncaused causer or deity to resolve this problem, they contradict a fundamental assumption of intelligent design that design requires a designer.
56894
If you buy into Judeo-Christian mythology, God is the author of free will.  Satan is not a creator, but a perverter, and thus could not give to Adam and Eve an inherent quality that they did not already possess.
413839
Yes, its a great book and opens up all new ideas about life and religion.  It really makes you think. It was written by Neale Donald Walsh. One of my favourite things written in it was, 'No one will judge you ever, for why, and how, could God judge God's own creation and call it bad?'
301370
Creator made humans and gave them his greatest gift: free will. Some humans put that gift to waste by destroying each other and the environment. Its sad.
1114559
I've read almost all of Orson Scott Card's books.  Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead are very good books.  However, he lost my interest when he created the duplicate Val and Peter at the end of Xenocide and the last bok in that series is pretty awful (not the writing, the story).   \nThe Philotic connections that allow instantaneous communication by ansible are an interesting theory.  It is nice to believe that we are all somehow connected by invisible threads but I seriously doubt that there is any scientific truth to it.
1112754
depends on the player, the cleverness, and other various aspects. So lets hear it...it better not be about D Lee or Maddux!
1173504
ROFLMAO! Do you mind if I re-write that for my Atheist chick-tracts?\n\nFor the guy above me... \n-The Watchmaker, by Rev. Jim Huber-\n\nWhile walking through the park, I found a watch. Watches (in my experience) do not simply spring into existence alongside the path. Someone of fairly high intelligence must have made the watch, then left it there. Wondering why someone might do such a thing, I decided to find the Watchmaker.\n\nLuck was with me. On the way home I saw an advertisement for similar watches available free (with the purchase of a meal) at a popular fast-food chain. I went to the nearest franchise and asked to see the Watchmaker. The counter-person was not helpful. "Dude, there's no Watchmaker here, we just pull 'em out of a box."\n\nI expressed my conviction that the watch could not simply happen. There must be a Watchmaker. The manager (who took an interest when I began to raise my voice) was able to shed some light on the matter. "Sir, we receive these watches from corporate headquarters in Vermont. If you want to find the Watchmaker, you will have to contact them."\n\nA very nice person at corporate headquarters was able to refer me to her contact at an import company, who referred me to his contact at a Far-Eastern manufacturing firm. Once I convinced him that I was not investigating his company's employment practices, he was kind enough to provide me with a description of their manufacturing process.\n\nThe watches were assembled by unskilled workers paid the equivalent of about two dollars a day. (For some reason my contact thought it was important to point out that this is nearly one-and-a-half times the local minimum wage.) The watch band, case, and face were injection molded in an automated process. The electronic portion of the watch was purchased in bulk from another company.\n\nContacting that company, I found that the electronic portions were produced on an assembly-line using a combination of industrial robots and semi-skilled labor.\n\nThe microchips were cut from blanks grown from vats of molten silicon and traces of other elements. The machinery that did this is impressive, but it did not build the blanks so much as control the environment so that the silicon could assemble itself.\n\nThe control circuitry is photo etched on to the silicon chips. The photo etchers are fairly complex, as machines go, but hardly intelligent. The operators of these machines are better trained than the laborers who assemble the finished product. However, their knowledge is limited to running the machines. They had nothing to do with the design of the watch.\n\nThe doohickey that counts off the seconds is a small bit of quartz. Quartz is a naturally occurring crystal that vibrates at a constant rate when an electric current passes through it.\n\nI'm sure all the folks involved in the manufacture of the watch were quite competent. Many of the folks I talked to seemed quite intelligent; but none of the people directly involved in the watch's manufacture would have been able to make a watch themselves from scratch. No one I had talked to so far was truly the Watchmaker.\n\nThe engineer who actually produced the design was knowledgeable and helpful. Unfortunately, his enthusiastic description of the process of circuit design was largely beyond me. I was able to glean two important facts: First, he used a computer aided design system. Second, his design was an enhancement of a previous design by another engineer, who based her design on an even earlier design, and so on; back through several decades.\n\nThe engineer was also able to provide me with a very interesting pamphlet entitled A brief history of time-keeping. This pamphlet traced the development of quartz clocks and watches back to a team of designers in the sixties. It went on to trace time-pieces in general back to the water-clocks of the ancient Greeks. It even contained a little speculation about the prehistoric people who
434239
If the destiny is already written then where is the free will.\n\nWe make our own destiny.
1187480
Its better to come up with your own ideas, because if you use someone else and sell your book. Thay can and more then lickly will sue you.\n\n\n I am a wright I will listen to your ideas, I bet you have more ideas then you know.
23394
Raymond Kurzweil is a pioneer in the fields of optical character recognition (OCR), text-to-speech synthesis, speech recognition technology, and electronic keyboard instruments. He is the author of several books on health, artificial intelligence, transhumanism, and the technological singularity.\n\nLife, inventions, and awards\nKurzweil grew up in Queens, New York. In his youth, he was an avid consumer of science fiction literature. By the age of 12 he had programmed his first computer. Shortly after his discovery of programming, he appeared on the CBS television programme I've Got a Secret, where he performed a piano piece that was composed by a computer he had built. In 1968 he sold a company he created that matched high schoolers with prospective colleges by answering a 200 question survey. He earned a B.Sc in Computer Science and Literature in 1970 from MIT.\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil\n\nBiography of Ray Kurzweil.\nhttp://www.kurzweiltech.com/raybio.html