Read Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case by Frank Turek Online


If you think atheists have reason, evidence, and science on their side, think again! Award-winning author Dr. Frank Turek (I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist) will show you how atheists steal reason, evidence, science, and other arguments from God in trying to make their case for atheism. If that sounds contradictory, it's because it is! Atheists can't make their cIf you think atheists have reason, evidence, and science on their side, think again! Award-winning author Dr. Frank Turek (I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist) will show you how atheists steal reason, evidence, science, and other arguments from God in trying to make their case for atheism. If that sounds contradictory, it's because it is! Atheists can't make their case without appealing to realities only theism can explain. In an engaging and memorable way, Stealing from God exposes these intellectual crimes atheists are committing and then provides four powerful reasons for why Christianity is true....

Title : Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9781612917016
Format Type : Paperback
Number of Pages : 304 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case Reviews

  • Michael Beaton
    2018-12-01 08:41

    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.

  • Yo Leo Ficción Cristiana
    2018-11-25 11:41

    RESEÑA EN ESPAÑOL COMPLETAThis 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-

  • JonathanT
    2018-12-08 09:07

    Well this was pretty awesome. Solid 4 stars, taking off one star because there's some content that's not really appropriate for younger audiences. (Think a little bit like Not a Fan.) This book was pretty much just a springboard into I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. So if you're interested in that but are daunted by the length, than this is for you. Then if you like this, you can move onto I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.

  • Kelli
    2018-12-07 04:51

    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.

  • Rod
    2018-11-20 07:11

    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.

  • Mubeshra
    2018-11-22 13:07

    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?

  • Christine Norman
    2018-11-18 13:10

    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!

  • John Martindale
    2018-11-14 06:59

    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 atheismOnly 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 inadmissiblePhilosophy 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

  • Tanya
    2018-12-06 09:50

    "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.

  • Nat Kidder
    2018-11-19 06:04

    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.

  • Skip
    2018-12-09 09:00

    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?

  • Laura
    2018-12-05 12:57

    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.

  • Jonathan Edet
    2018-12-05 11:55

    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.

  • Roger Leonhardt
    2018-11-17 10:54

    Excellent !!!!! Even better the second time around!!!!!!

  • Jeremy Pitman
    2018-11-30 11:47

    Really, really good. Logically and with such precision, turns atheistic arguments on their heads.

  • Mark Lickliter
    2018-12-10 07:49

    Superb! Frank is what I would call an "eclectic apologist", which means he is not bound by one particular method. Others I would classify this way are Ravi Zacharias, John Frame and Douglas Groothuis. I'm sure others like Francis Schaeffer and C.S. Lewis might fit within my own made-up category as well. Turek blends the best of Classical, Evidential and Presuppositional methods when dealing with his debate opponents. I think Turke's approach is among the most helpful. It takes discernment and patience to find the right tool for the right job, and Frank navigates this terrain well. He also intersperses his book with nice recaps of previous great debates such as Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stein, Douglas Wilson vs. Christopher Hitchens, and Stephen C. Meyer vs. Peter Ward. Turek uses these previous debates as illustrations to learn from and would help the average Christian to grow as a more effective apologist. I appreciated this book greatly and would recommend it to any Christian looking to win people instead of arguments. Such an approach is rare, but sorely needed in the Church today!

  • Carl Hempel
    2018-12-09 12:57

    Excellent read! I was vaguely familiar with many of the arguments put forth prior to reading it, but this book has clarified several things that had not been clear to me. For example the reason that God must be personal is that if he were impersonal he would have no reason to create - gravity, an impersonal force creates nothing.The book does at times feel repetitive making the same argument over and over, but it is not unnecessary as it helps one more fully grasp the content.

  • Allison Anderson Armstrong
    2018-11-17 08:54

    Basically another look at theism versus atheism, creationist views versus evolutionist and a lot of the same info as "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist." Still a great book, although the title is a little misleading, the "Stealing from God" part seems to be sending a different message initially than one would think. I see what he means, and the subtitle explains, but still ...

  • Andrew Shaw
    2018-11-13 06:02

    Logical and sound arguments against blind atheismTurek's logic is excellent and thought-provoking. I recommend this for all who are interested in atheism vs Christianity: closed-minded cynics who will hate it and open-minded skeptics who might just find real truth at the end.

  • Marty Taylor
    2018-12-04 06:04

    Very well written. Detailed, yet approachable answers to difficult questions. I'll be referring this book to people.

  • Paul Creasy
    2018-11-29 10:41

    Great bookA very approachable and down to earth presentation of basic Christian apologetics. Highly recommended for either the casual or serious student of the subject.

  • Patrick Conley
    2018-11-19 12:06

    Turek does an incredible job again. He lays out a logical case for theism and then Christianity. A must read for any fan of apologetics.

  • Esther
    2018-11-20 12:43

    Great read! I am grateful for knowing God and being able to follow the evidence to the Truth. My book is well marked up.

  • Brad
    2018-12-04 04:58

    Hard to read, but worth it.

  • Margach Sam
    2018-12-03 04:49

    it's a great book

  • Surge
    2018-12-09 11:49

    If you’re still an atheist after reading this book you’ve got more deeper issues.

  • Jonathan Larssen
    2018-11-10 09:06

    Excellent information but not always handled in a loving way

  • Luke Koskinen
    2018-11-24 10:53

    This book is a great one to read if you are looking for carefully thought out arguments and refreshing stories concerning the existence of God. I honestly did not think I was going to like it because I have never been very interested in books of this genre, but it was surprisingly inspiring and clear.

  • Sofia Aguilar
    2018-11-20 04:49

    "Stealing from God" by Frank Turek is an in-depth analysis of the arguments of atheists and why they are not only false, but also borrow from the very God that made their ability to reason and scrutinize evidence, possible. I have never needed this book more at this point in my life, when I sometimes question my faith (and yes, Christians do this more than you know!) in the midst of the evil that is happening in the world and the various issues taking place that seem to threaten everything I believe in. Yet, in this inspiring and remarkable book that is suitable for any theist or atheist (or any skeptic, really), Turek goes into great detail about the five common arguments atheists present to Christians that they think make the most rational sense. He uses the acronym CRIME to represent Causality, Reason, Information & Intentionality, Morality, Evil, and Science, and though I cannot hope to do his words justice, it certainly is an interesting read. Though Frank Turek is a Christian, he utilizes arguments made by world-famous atheists such as Richard Dawkins and clearly explains why they're false and contradictory of themselves. He also presents the exact transcripts of various debates made between Christians and atheists, but even without his following analysis, it's clear to see how many atheists go around in cul-de-sacs with their logic. C.S. Lewis, a wonderful author and Christian himself, is also quoted various times throughout the book to give an insight on many issues facing Christians today in terms of defending their faith, not realizing that atheists in fact, need more faith to believe the absurdity of what they believe. Stealing from God solidified my confidence in my faith and gave me more motivation to share it now that I have counterarguments for any that may raise objections to Christianity. Never have I been more proud to belong to such a loving God, who not only created the fine-tuned universe we have today, but also created me and you and all of us in His own image. How incredible is that? Though I still have questions about current issues today, I highly recommend "Stealing from God" because it's interesting, powerful, and inspiring, and you won't want Frank Turek to stop writing! It's truly a gift to behold for any and all Christians and atheists.

  • Jacob O'connor
    2018-11-28 08:41

    The other day I came across a Ron Rhodes book on my shelf. It brought back memories of being a young Christian trying to make sense of my faith. Thinkers like him, Josh McDowell, and Walter Williams were my guides. I was nurtured in the "evidentialist" school of apologetics.A few years ago I discovered Cornelius Van Till. It was love at first sight. His "presuppositional" approach to apologetics took God and Scripture more seriously. I've yet to hear good counters to the transcendental arguments for God's existence.What Frank Turek has done is meld the two into a popular-level critique of modern atheism. This is a fun read that makes great points, even though Turek's Tertullianesque sarcasm won't convert the likes of Richard Dawkins.Couple notes: -Where do atheists get the category of evil? How do they justify it? If you say there is evil, you also say there is good. When you assume a law, you assume a lawgiver.-Dawkins in one place argues that God is evil. In another that evil doesn't exist. -Harris struggles to explain objective moral values without God. How is his attempt not subjective?-If atheism is true, theres no way to know it.-if atheism is simply a lack of belief in God, then rocks, beetles, and outhouses are all atheists.-Saying atheism isn’t a belief is like saying anarchy isn’t a political position.-If lacking a belief in God is the same as saying "God doesn't exist", then atheism is true even if God doesn't exist. Contradictory-Since nature had a beginning, it can't be it's own cause-Natural-law-of-the-gaps-John Lennox vs. Dawkins-For years, atheists were just fine with an eternal universe. Why the sudden problem with an eternal God? (God and the astronomers)-Why does the law of cuasality work?-Before there were any humans on the earth, was the statement, "There are no humans on the earth" true?-Unless human reasoning is valid, science has no basis-The point is not that arguments for atheism fail. The point is all arguments fail on atheism-To say that science can disprove God is like saying a mechanic can disprove Henry Ford