#10: Does God Exist? And Is the Christian God the Same as the Islamic God? Pt. 1

(For much-more information about this blog, see the home page at https://reasonbasedfaith.com/.)

It’s recently come to my attention that anxiety and depression, particularly in young people, are frequently present today—to such a degree that some are calling this an epidemic of anxiety and depression! In previous years, I’ve been acquainted with both. The Biblical solutions are very effective if they are correctly and consistently applied. I discuss them and relate some of my experiences in this anti-suicide and anti-discouragement page. I also very much recommend this later Post #11, on “How I Overcame Depression and Suicidal Thoughts by Understanding the Fine-Tuning of the Universe” at https://reasonbasedfaith.com/2022/04/30/11-how-i-overcame-depression-and-suicidal-thoughts-by-understanding-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe/.

Information on the now-surging Coronavirus

I occasionally update readers on the latest Coronavirus news. If any reader is not interested, he/she can skip over this section.

There are some people who sincerely say, “I believe in God, but I’m not sure about what scientists claim; I’m not sure about these vaccines.” My response is that, on the one hand, God gave us science in that scientific truth comes ultimately from Him because He created everything. However, on the other hand, scientific truth can be interpreted either wisely or poorly. I believe in balanced, careful, and wise interpretations of scientific truth. (E.g. https://reasons.org/interviews/responding-to-questions-about-the-covid-19-vaccine; https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/the-covid-19-vaccines-and-god-s-providence; https://reasons.org/explore/publications/rtb-101; https://reasons.org/blog)

Now, it’s become increasingly obvious that the Coronavirus is surging again, particularly with the Delta variant, which is twice as contagious as the original strain! I’ve previously covered the proper precautions that are scientifically-recommended to better protect us from Covid in Post #5: As We Reopen: Coronavirus Risks We Should Understand in order to Better Protect Ourselves (click to follow link). Much of this information was from Professor Erin Bromage’s post that went viral.

What I didn’t mention in Post #5 is that, from a scientific perspective, there is no question that being fully vaccinated is an additional, potent measure of protection. Anyone who remains unvaccinated makes himself/herself more vulnerable to catching Covid and to becoming seriously ill if he/she catches it.

The current Covid vaccines were made by a different process than traditional vaccines—i.e. creating a particular mRNA which would then, in the human body, result in a production of the spike protein (which is harmless in itself). But the result of the current Covid vaccines (i.e. introducing a substance—the spike protein—which stimulates the human immune system to fight a particular pathogen) is identical to traditional vaccines. This is why the current Covid vaccines should be accepted as genuine vaccines. Of course, all vaccines may potentially have side effects, which should be weighed against a vaccine’s potential benefit, but in this case, the potential benefit (saving one’s life) is great.

Here’s a relevant quote from the USA Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: “Getting vaccinated prevents severe illness, hospitalizations, and death. Unvaccinated people should get vaccinated and continue masking until they are fully vaccinated. With the Delta variant, this is more urgent than ever. CDC has updated guidance for fully vaccinated people based on new evidence on the Delta variant.” (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html)

The abovementioned guidance from the CDC for fully-vaccinated people can be found from the above link or here: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated.html. An important statement they make on this page is: “To maximize protection from the Delta variant and prevent possibly spreading it to others, wear a mask indoors in public if you are in an area of substantial or high transmission.”

I agree with the scientific soundness of the CDC’s advice.

Here’s a recent report from CNN: ‘Mind-boggling’ data about the unvaccinated and Covid-19. This report states, in part, that the chance of an unvaccinated person dying from Covid is 25 times HIGHER than the chance of a fully-vaccinated person dying from Covid!

Similarly, statistics from Israel indicate that people who have received three vaccine doses are 22.9 times LESS likely to become seriously ill (from Covid) than those who remain unvaccinated. Conversely, those who remain unvaccinated are 22.9 times MORE likely to become seriously ill than those who have received three vaccine doses! Cf. https://coronavirus.quora.com/?__ni__=0&__nsrc__=4&__snid3__=26501872637&__tiids__=38013058.

It’s therefore advisable for all of us to be fully vaccinated. Particularly because the Delta variant is surging, those who choose to remain unvaccinated are deliberately risking their own lives, needlessly.

Also, here’s an opinion that I very-much agree with, because science bears it out (see my fifth post). It was published in the Washington Post on 8/28/21: “Vaccines can only do so much. The rest is up to people. … The dream that vaccines would immediately squelch the pandemic was unrealistic. The fault … lies squarely on the shoulders of those … who refuse to embrace other disease-fighting tools that are critical: face masks, improved ventilation, good hygiene, distancing, and testing. Vaccines can do only so much, because there is no such thing as an inoculation against human obstinacy.” (https://coronavirus.quora.com/?__ni__=0&__nsrc__=4&__snid3__=25783395250&__tiids__=36517314)

By carefully following these basic preventative measures, Japan has reduced their Covid cases by 89%! The whole world could potentially do the same, if only we were consistently willing to do the basics. (https://coronavirus.quora.com/?__ni__=0&__nsrc__=4&__snid3__=26952781388&__tiids__=39297907; the scientific support for these basic measures is very settled and established; see my fifth post.)

Similarly, using vaccine booster shots, vaccine passports, and mask mandates, Israel has recently seen their daily Covid infection rate drop by more than 80%. (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/with-boosters-masks-green-pass-israel-sees-covid-19-wave-retreat-2021-10-15/)

A brief preface, based on a quote from C. S. Lewis

As I’ve previously mentioned: years ago, I used to be an atheist. However, I was challenged by a Christian to study the actual evidences supporting the New Testament and God’s existence. As a result of my study, three compelling evidences spoke to me; I believed and became a Christian. (I now know of over thirty groups of evidences; we’ll cover the most-cogent and understandable ones in upcoming posts.)

At that time, I also essentially believed in a perspective of C. S, Lewis, found in his book, God in the Dock (i.e. God on trial). Specifically, he wrote: “Christianity is a statement which, if false, is of no importance, and, if true, [is] of infinite importance. The one thing it cannot be is moderately important.” (God in the Dock, edited by Walter Hooper, HarperOne, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, 2014, Part 1, Chapter 10, p. 101, Kindle Locations 1645-1646) Lewis wrote this because, if Christianity is true, we can then (if we believe) have eternal life, which is infinitely valuable.

I think that the same can be said about this issue: is the Christian God or the Islamic God the theistic God whose perceived existence has now been strengthened scientifically and logically? That is, His existence can now be better accepted by those objectively evaluating the latest scientific evidence, especially since the publication of the new book by Dr. Stephen Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind behind the Universe. (HarperOne, 2021) (The “theistic” God is the personal and intelligent Creator God who intervenes in the universe He has made.)

I’ll further explain and clarify these concepts in this post, based on Meyer’s book—which I describe in sections 3A, parts 1 & 2. Also, these two explanatory videos (here and here) will help greatly to define and clarify these concepts. These videos may be accessed from the links or can be viewed on this very blog page, in sections 1A and 3C.

Because the theistic God’s perceived existence has been objectively strengthened, because our eternity is predicated or dependent upon His existence and identity, and because the means of our entering into eternity (with God) is vastly-different in Islam as compared to Christianity, these issues should be considered infinitely important as well.

1. The conundrum

Some people sincerely desire to understand Islam and its relationship to Christianity—particularly the question, “Is the Christian God the same as the Islamic God?”

I believe that typical Christians and typical Muslims are generally sincere in what they believe and practice. I have no problems with anyone’s sincerity.

It’s therefore a conundrum why, if there is only one God manifesting Himself to both groups—why then does He display to the Muslims dramatically-different characteristics (in certain areas) than those He displays to the Christians?

I can think of only two possible scenarios to explain this:

(1) For some unknown reason, the same God shows Himself differently to the two groups—i.e. as having dramatically-different characteristics.

However, we can infer that the Biblical God would not likely do this, on the basis that the Bible states that He does not change in His essential nature or character. (Psalm 33:11; 102:25-27; Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 6:17-19; 13:8; James 1:17) It also describes Him as stable and steadfast. (Numbers 23:19; Psalm 18:2; 62:1-2, 7; 91:1-2)

The second possibility is this:

(2) There may be two different Gods that Christians and Muslims worship! However, since the latest scientific evidence favors ONE theistic God (as I’ll explain), one of these Gods likely exists, while the other likely does not.

I’ll leave it to the reader to decide between these two options or scenarios, assisted by the evidences and logical arguments offered in this post and the next (Part 2).

1A. About the fine-tuning

Why is ONE theistic God favored? As we’ll see in sections 3D and 3E of this post, the fine-tuning of the universe nicely demonstrates God’s existence because the multiverse objection has been nullified by the latest evidence.

Dr. Stephen Meyer defines “fine-tuning” as “a set of improbable parameters that work jointly to establish some discernable function or outcome. And the examples of things that are finely-tuned are things like a French recipe or an internal combustion engine or a section of digital code. So whenever we see a fine-tuned system, those systems always have one thing in common, and that is that they were intelligently designed.” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHIotPuNysk) From the book, his definition of the fine-tuning of the universe is: “…the discovery that many properties of the universe fall within extremely narrow and improbable ranges that turn out to be absolutely necessary for complex forms of life, or even complex chemistry, and thus any conceivable form of life, to exist.” (Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 7, p. 165, Kindle Locations 2358-2359)

This animated, 6-minute video explains the fine-tuning and multiverse concepts; it’s from Reasonable Faith, the organization founded by Dr. William Lane Craig. Readers can play it on this page, without going to the YouTube page.

Click (or tap) on the center of the following YouTube block to play the embedded video:

If the above video doesn’t appear in your browser, the link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE76nwimuT0.

The particular kind of multiverse (that skeptics offer as an alternative to the theistic implications of the fine-tuning) is an assemblage of a virtually-infinite number of universes, each of which varies in its physical parameters.

Here’s my definition: the fine-tuning of our universe refers to the fact that many parameters or measured constants and quantities in physics, which can potentially allow for life to exist in our universe, are indeed precisely set to values that are within a VERY-narrow life-giving range; i.e. in which life is actually possible on a life-friendly planet. (These include the initial conditions of our universe that were present in the Big Bang—long before ANY life existed—which points to a transcendent Cause; i.e. from outside of our universe!)

Without this fine-tuning, no life would be possible anywhere in our universe at any time in its history. The parameters are set so that stars will produce the light elements (like hydrogen) and the heavy elements (like iron) that life requires. There would not be the correct carbon isotope for life’s chemistry without the fundamental forces being carefully balanced, in order to produce this isotope. Other extreme fine-tuning produces a universe like ours instead of one in which all of the matter is widely spread apart—with no stars, planets, or galaxies—OR a universe in which all matter comes together in a “Big Crunch,” again, with no stars, planets, or galaxies. Either way, life couldn’t exist. (Cf. Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 7, pp. 171-173, Kindle Locations 2449-2497 & Chapter 8, pp. 189-191, Kindle Locations 2742-2781)

1B. Why is ONE theistic God favored?

Therefore, the fine-tuning points directly to an intelligent Designer for our entire universe—unless a particular kind of multiverse exists, which is now no longer a realistic alternative to explain theistic Design. (Skeptics claim that, if a virtually-infinite number of other universes exist, each of which varies in its physical parameters, then we just happen by chance to live in the “lucky” universe that’s fine-tuned for life! But there’s an extremely-cogent reason that puts God undeniably back into this scenario; see more in sections 3D and 3E or in Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 16, pp. 402-406, Kindle Locations 6079-6161.)

And, since ALL of the fine-tuned parameters of the universe WORK TOGETHER to allow for life on a life-friendly planet, Ockham’s Razor favors the likelihood of ONE existent, theistic God, because there’s no necessity or reason to multiply one theistic, causal entity into two or more.

1C. Ockham’s Razor

Ockham’s (or Occam’s) Razor is “a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex …” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition)

Strictly speaking, the Razor consists of two principles which state that. “Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity” and that, “What can be done with fewer [assumptions] is done in vain with more.” Academic philosopher and theologian Kenneth Samples explained, “In other words, when confronted with two seemingly-equal explanatory hypotheses, the simplest or most-economical explanation should be granted logical deference.” (Does Ockham’s Razor Support Naturalism?)

Some skeptics have attempted to use the Razor to imply that, “A universe without a God is [supposedly] explanatorily superior to a universe with a God.” But Kenneth Samples responds by showing that an explanation must also be able to fully account for the data—it must have sufficient explanatory power and scope—which atheism or naturalism lacks. (Cf. Ibid.)

Atheism’s or naturalism’s lack in this regard is extremely evident with the fine-tuning of the universe, as we see in Dr. Meyer’s book, Return of the God Hypothesis, chapters 7, 8, 13, and 16. Chapter 16 cogently demonstrates why a multiverse is no longer a realistic option to explain the fine-tuning; see pages 402-406; Kindle Locations 6079-6161. I discuss more of this in sections 3D and 3E.

2. The features of this post

I had such a large volume of information contrasting Christianity and Islam (for example, in Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross by Dr. Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Baker Book House, 2002) that distilling it took some time. There’s so much information that I’ve split this post into two parts.

More specifically, I’m aware of seven major differences and three logical arguments, which scholars have used to contrast Christianity and Islam. We’ll delve into these (the first argument in this Post and the second and third in Part 2) and also look at Dr. William Lane Craig’s evaluation of the naïve assumption that all religions are basically the same.

In addition, section 3A (parts 1 & 2) has a description of Dr. Meyer’s aforementioned book, Return of the God Hypothesis. In it, he shows why it’s scientifically and logically reasonable to believe that a theistic God exists—a topic I’ve delved into in sections 1A & 1B, and which I’ll deal with more in sections 3D and 3E. Why is this relevant? The three best-known theistic religions are Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

2A. What about Judaism?

Someone may ask: “What about Judaism?” Personally, I like the Jewish perspective on faith in God because it’s rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures—what Christians call the Old Testament. But Hebrew prophecy cogently points us to Jesus of Nazareth, especially in Isaiah 53:4-12, Daniel 7:13-14, and in Daniel 9:24-26. (At the linked web pages, scroll down each to view the entire passage.) With Daniel 9:24-26, when one calculates the time of the Messiah’s coming using ancient, 360-day years, March 30 or Nisan 10 in 33 AD is the result—the day of Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Luke 19:28-40), according to Professor Harold Hoehner of Dallas Theological Seminary. (Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, Zondervan Academic, 2010, Chapter 6, Kindle Locations 1733-1743) I’ll provide many-more details in a subsequent post.

There’s an interesting phenomenon occurring today among the Jewish people. While most—though not all—Jewish rabbis apparently feel constrained by their tradition to reject Jesus, an increasing number of Jewish people are now believing in Jesus or Yeshua (in the Hebrew) as their Messiah—and yes, they still very much consider themselves to be Jewish! For Messianic-Jewish testimonies, see https://www.oneforisrael.org/about-us/i-met-messiah-jewish-testimonies-videos/. For numerous details on this, including quotes from ancient Jewish rabbis in favor of interpreting Isaiah 53 (especially verses 4 to 12) in a way that its reference to Jesus can be clearly seen, see Dr. Eitan Bar’s book: Refuting Rabbinic Objections to Christianity and Messianic Prophecies, published by One for Israel Ministry, 2019.

2B. An outline

What follows is an outline of the main or more-prominent sections of this post. (In this blog, a “section” is a usually-numbered group of paragraphs, with a heading that indicates the number and title of that section; e.g. 4. Are all religions basically the same?)

The main sections have headings that are numbered without letters; the headings of the sub-sections have both numbers and letters; e.g. 5A, 5B. Thus, if a heading is identified by only a number in front of its title, it delineates a main or major section. If a heading has a number and letter before its title, it delineates a sub-section. The difference is that a main section introduces and describes a topic, while a sub-section elaborates on an aspect of that topic. Here are the main sections of this post, which is Part 1 of 2:

1. The Conundrum
2. The features of this post
3. Dr. Meyer’s book & the theistic God’s existence
4. Are all religions basically the same?
5. The “Greatest Conceivable Being” Argument
6. Following my blog
7. Recommended videos and books 

3. Dr. Meyer’s book & the theistic God’s existence

As I’ve indicated, there is powerful evidence supporting the existence of the theistic God. Since the best-known theistic religions are Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, this evidence is relevant—especially in this post, as we begin to contrast Christianity and Islam.

Particularly for those wanting scientific evidence for God, I highly recommend Dr. Meyer’s new book, Return of the God Hypothesis (HarperOne, 2021).

This is from the “About the Author” section of the book: “Stephen C. Meyer received his PhD from the University of Cambridge in the philosophy of science. He directs the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute in Seattle and authored the New York Times bestseller Darwin’s Doubt and Signature in the Cell, a (London) Times Literary Supplement ‘Book of the Year.’”

Dr. Meyer is also a Christian who prominently displays his theistic belief—not an atheistic belief (that God does not or probably does not exist). The theistic God is the personal and intelligent Creator God who intervenes in the universe He has made; generic “theism” is the belief in this kind of God; Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all theists on an ultra-basic level.

Years ago, in 2004, Meyer stated that, “…scientific evidence actually supports theistic belief. In fact, across a wide range of the sciences, evidence has come to light in the last fifty years which, taken together, provides a robust case for theism. Only theism can provide an intellectually satisfying causal explanation for all of this evidence … the major developments in science in the past five decades have been running in a strongly theistic direction.” (Quoted in journalist Lee Strobel’s book, The Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004, Chapter 4, pp. 74 & 77, Kindle Locations 1267-1269, 1321)

Dr. Meyer then quoted Dr. Arno Penzias, a 1978 Nobel Prize winner in physics. Dr. Penzias stated about the “Big Bang” beginning of the universe: “The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the first five books of Moses, the Psalms. and the Bible as a whole.” (Quoted in an article from the New York Times, March 12, 1978, “Clues to Universe Origin Expected” by Malcolm W. Browne; requoted in The Case for a Creator, Chapter 4, p. 77, Kindle Location 1334)

3A (Part 1): Not “God of the gaps”

In Return of the God Hypothesis, Dr. Meyer cogently argues for the theistic God’s existence from scientific evidence—not by means of “God of the gaps” reasoning, but by means of inference to the best explanation—a form of reasoning that’s highly-respected; it’s an integral part of the scientific method. Cf. God-of-the-Gaps or Best Explanation? Best Explanation Apologetics; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Abduction; Inference to the Best Explanation; On Guard Conference: William Lane Craig – What is Apologetics?

Inferences to the best explanation arise as a result of asking the question, “Which of these competing hypotheses best explains the scientific data?”

Dr. Meyer stated that, “…the argument presented here … uses straightforward considerations of causal adequacy along with parsimony and other theoretical virtues to assess the explanatory power of competing metaphysical hypotheses and to present theism as an inference to the best explanation, not an argument from ignorance.” (Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 20, p. 484, Kindle Locations 7498-7502)

Dr. Meyer discusses the “God of the gaps” reasoning in this short video. Click or tap on the center of the following YouTube block to watch the embedded video:

The link for this video is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGqzCA1mnyM.

3A (Part 2): In the book

In the book, Dr, Meyer provides in-depth reasons why the God hypothesis is extremely plausible and, in fact, highly probable from a scientific and logical perspective—such that God’s existence can be seen as true and actual beyond a reasonable doubt (there’s no other realistic way of accounting for the latest evidence). He also provides in-depth reasons why atheistic objections to God’s existence have failed. This book probes into the scientific evidence both for God’s existence and for the weaknesses of atheistic objections, more so than any other book I’ve ever read.

Michael Denton, M.D., Ph.D., former Senior Research Fellow in biochemistry at the University of Otago (in New Zealand), described the Return of the God Hypothesis in very positive terms: “Reviewing all relevant evidence from cosmology to molecular biology, Meyer builds an irrefutable ‘case for God’ while delivering an unanswerable set of logical and scientific broadsides against the currently fashionable materialistic/atheistic worldview. Meyer builds his argument relentlessly, omitting no significant area of debate. The logic throughout is compelling and the book almost impossible to put down.”

Continuing: “Meyer is a master at clarifying complex issues, making the text accessible to the widest possible audience. Readers will be struck by Meyer’s extraordinary depth of knowledge in every relevant area. The book is a masterpiece and will be widely cited in years to come. The best, most lucid, comprehensive defense of the ‘God hypothesis’ in print. No other publication comes close. A unique tour de force.” (Return of the God Hypothesis, under “Advance Praise for Return of the God Hypothesis,” p. 722, Kindle Locations 12550-12556)

I concur. In my (Roger’s) opinion, the scientific evidence, in particular, heavily favors God’s existence to an astonishing degree. And the one non-scientific evidence that’s frequently brought up by atheists—human suffering—is well-explained within the Biblical worldview and also, for that matter, within the Islamic worldview.

Also, according to Dr. Meyer (here), Dr. Brian Josephson, Professor Emeritus of physics at the University of Cambridge and a Nobel Laureate (a winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, in this case, in 1973) has endorsed Return of the God Hypothesis! A book should be considered outstandingly valuable if it’s endorsed by a Nobel Laureate.

3B. ETs can’t explain it

By the way, the reason we know that a theistic—not deistic—God exists is that He acts within the universe well after its creation, as in the infusion of massive amounts of new biological information into the genomes of organisms, as in the Cambrian Explosion—which the Neo-Darwinian mechanism cannot account for, yet which intelligent design superbly does. (See the partially-animated documentary: Darwin’s Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record: the Cambrian animals were animated. Also see Dr. Stephen Meyer’s book, Darwin’s Doubt, particularly chapters 17 and 18; HarperOne publishers, 2013, and his recent book, Return of the God Hypothesis, chapters 9, 10, 14, and 15.)

Neo-Darwinism is particularly inadequate in accounting for the presence of large amounts of specified, complex, algorithmic information (numerous sets of step-by-step instructions in the developmental regime of complex multicellular organisms, such as mammals, especially humans)—the presence of such information strongly argues for the existence of a theistic God (one who intervenes in the universe He has made).

Why? In all of our experience, large amounts of specified information of this sort (step-by-step instructions) only come from an intelligent source! Hence, it’s an inference to the best explanation (not God-of-the-gaps reasoning) to conclude that this large amount of specified algorithmic information (in the developmental regime of multicellular organisms) probably came from an intelligent Designer; i.e. a theistic God! (Cf. Dr. Stephen Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, chapters 9, 10, 14, 15, & 20; Dr. Fazale Rana, biochemist, author of Chapter 12 of Thinking About Evolution, RTB Press. 2020; Does Information Come from a Mind? Too Good to Be True: Evolution and the Origin of Bioinformation.)

Some skeptics acknowledge that the Neo-Darwinian mechanism can’t explain biological information in the first life on Earth. But they claim that, “Extraterrestrial aliens seeded life on Earth and they put the biological information into those primitive life forms.” (This is called the panspermia hypothesis.)

Nevertheless, who put the biological information into the genomes of the extraterrestrial aliens to get them going? Some skeptics say, “Other extraterrestrial aliens!” But then, who put the information into the FIRST extraterrestrial aliens in our universe? Only an intelligent Designer (a theistic God) could, because neo-Darwinism can’t explain it, yet intelligent design explains it very well.

Neo-Darwinism can’t explain the first life forms because it doesn’t address the origin-of-life problem. Random mutations and natural selection act on life that already exists, yet the latest evidence shows that they don’t go beyond the biological classification level of family, according to Professor Michael Behe. All of this is an inference to the best explanation, plus we have independent evidence from the fine-tuning that God exists and therefore, may well be responsible for biological information. Cf. Webinar with Dr. Michael Behe; Return of the God Hypothesis, chapters 9, 10, 14, & 15; Darwin Devolves: The New Science about DNA that Challenges Evolution by Professor Michael Behe, HarperOne, 2019.

3C. Scientists believe in the fine-tuning

This short (6-minute) video by Dr. Craig about the fine-tuning and multiverse follows. This may help to explain concepts that are still unclear. Click or tap again on the center of this YouTube block to play the video:

If this video doesn’t appear in your browser, the link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk1pEHXnPsE.

From this point on, I’ll assume that every reader has understood the fine-tuning and multiverse concepts found in the two above videos.

Firstly, the fine-tuning of our universe—the facts that many physical parameters are set at just the right level or measurable value (within a narrow life-giving range), and that this allows for life to exist in our universe, on a life-friendly planet—is accepted by and non-controversial among scientists. Virtually-all agree that the fine-tuning exists, though they disagree on its cause. Some prefer the multiverse explanation, while others prefer theistic Design. (Or at least this has been the case up until this past April, with the publication of Meyer’s new book! The evidence for theistic Design is now so apparent that I imagine opinions will gradually change over time, as the latest evidence, cited in his book, becomes widely known.)

(A 2009 Pew Research Center survey found that 51 percent of scientists believe in God or in a “universal spirit or higher power,” while 41 percent disbelieve. Obviously, it can’t be unscientific to believe in God or in a higher power, since the majority of scientists did so in 2009! (Cf. http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/)

About the fine-tuning: astronomer Hugh Ross wrote in his book, The Creator and the Cosmos: “In all my conversations with those researching the characteristics of the universe, and in all my readings of articles or books on the subject, not one person denies the conclusion that the cosmos appears to have been crafted to make it a fit habitat for life. Astronomers by nature tend to be independent and iconoclastic. If an opportunity for disagreement exists, they will seize it. But on the issue of the apparent fine-tuning of the cosmos for the benefit of life, and human beings in particular, the evidence is so compelling that I have yet to hear of any dissent.” (The Creator and the Cosmos, RTB Press, 2018, Chapter 15, Kindle Locations 2964-2968)

In supporting this point (and another) with quotes from two physicists, Dr. Meyer observed that: “…this fine tuning strongly suggests design by a preexistent intelligence. As the British physicist Paul Davies put it in 1988, ‘The impression of design is overwhelming.’ Similarly, astrophysicist Luke Barnes notes: ‘Fine tuning suggests that, at the deepest level that physics has reached, the Universe is well put-together. … The whole system seems well thought out, something that someone planned and created.’” (Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 7, p. 174, Kindle Locations 2519-2522)

3D. Why the theistic God exists

Secondly, since a multiverse no longer explains the fine-tuning, this unquestionably leaves theistic Design as the clear and best explanation.

How so? The particular kind of multiverse that would (if it exists) be a viable alternative to the theistic implications arising from the fine-tuning (of our universe) would itself require more-extreme fine-tuning than what it’s trying to explain!

Dr. Meyer provides specific examples of this extreme fine- tuning of a multiverse hypothetically arising from inflationary cosmology or string theory—which (if such a multiverse exists) would support theistic Design anyway and thus, God’s existence—even more than the fine-tuning that’s already evident from our universe! (Cf. Dr. Stephen Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, HarperOne, 2021, Chapter 16, pp. 402-406, Kindle Locations 6079-6161)

3E. The strongest theistic argument

Here’s the very-strongest theistic argument in regards to the fine-tuning:

From the above reasoning, there’s no realistic way to explain the fine-tuning of our universe—except as the activity of a theistic God, since the only alternative—a particular kind of possibly-existing multiverse (one predicated on inflationary cosmology and string theory, and that hypothetically contains a virtually-infinite number of universes, each of which varies in its physical parameters)—would require more-extreme fine-tuning than that of our own universe!

Therefore, either way, the fine-tuning (of either) is clearly and best explained as the activity of a theistic God—who thus exists beyond a reasonable doubt, since the fine-tuning (of both our universe and that particular kind of hypothetical multiverse) is well-established. (Cf. Ibid, chapters 7, 8, 13, and especially Chapter 16, pp. 402-406, Kindle Locations 6079-6161)

In addition, we have NO scientific or empirical evidence that even ONE other universe exists besides our own! In other words, even a second universe exists only in speculation, as (of course) does the postulated infinite number of other universes!

From another perspective: the fine-tuning of our universe now stands as a proof for the theistic God’s existence beyond a reasonable doubt, because what was the only feasible naturalistic alternative (a particular kind of multiverse) would actually be (if it exists) a greater proof for God, because of its more-extreme fine-tuning!

And thus, a theistic God best explains (1) the fine-tuning of our universe AND (2) the more-extreme fine-tuning that would be required for a possibly-existing multiverse. Either way, a theistic God exists, to an extremely-high degree of probability. Nothing else makes any realistic or rational sense. (A more-thorough treatment in an upcoming post will establish these points for two additional reasons, based on Meyer’s book, Chapter 16.)

3F. A game-changer and another excellent video

In this sense, Dr, Meyer’s book is a GAME-CHANGER: before his book was published, my perspective was that, “The theistic God probably exists, based on numerous evidences.” Now it’s clear to me that the theistic God exists beyond any realistic or reasonable doubt, because theistic Design is the only remaining, realistic way to explain the fine-tuning.

Dr. Meyer discusses these concepts in the following 8-minute video: Who is Nature’s Designer? In this video, he astutely explains exactly WHY all of the evidence demonstrates that a theistic God exists. (He includes in his talk evidence from the fine-tuning, from biological information, and from the beginning of the universe.) Click or tap again on the center of this YouTube block to play the video:

If this video doesn’t appear in your browser, the link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRtT21zgPbs.

There’s more evidence for theistic Design involving the fine-tuning and multiverse scenarios—which I’ll soon develop into a full post titled, “Science Supports God: A Theistic God Exists for 3 Reasons, Based on Universe Fine-Tuning.” For those not wanting to wait, I recommend that you read chapters 7, 8, 13, and 16 of Dr. Meyer’s book, Return of the God Hypothesis.

4. Are all religions basically the same?

Before we go over the logical arguments supporting the differences (between Christianity and Islam), we should consider for a moment that some people are unaware of these differences. In fact, some assume that, “All religions are basically the same; there are no significant differences between them. They all teach that we should be good and that getting to Heaven depends on our good deeds. All other differences are minor!”

This can appear to be so because most religions support a basic moral code that can be generalized in one clause—“Love your neighbor.” However, there’s much, much more to the major religions of the world than this basic moral code.

Specifically: reputable scholars disagree with the foregoing assumption (about the similarity of all religions) because the differences between them are so dramatic—even their basic beliefs are often mutually-contradictory and therefore, mutually-exclusive and irreconcilable.

4A. Input from Dr. William Lane Craig

Dr. William Lane Craig is an academic philosopher, theologian, and university professor, who holds two earned doctorates from prestigious European universities. He’s the author of many scholarly books and is well-known throughout the academic world. In other words, Dr. Craig knows what he’s talking about, especially on basic issues regarding philosophy and theology.

His website is at https://www.reasonablefaith.org/; his first YouTube channel is at https://www.youtube.com/user/ReasonableFaithOrg; his second channel, which I especially recommend, is at https://www.youtube.com/user/drcraigvideos.

Concerning this issue of differing religions, he has affirmed that, “…religious relativism (which is almost unthinkingly accepted by many people today) is simply not true. In fact, religious relativism is logically incoherent, and therefore it cannot be true. For the world’s religions conceive of God (or gods) in so many different contradictory ways that they cannot all be true. In particular, the concept of God in Islam and Christianity is so different that both religions cannot be right. Islam and Christianity have different doctrines (or teachings) about God that make them irreconcilable.”

Continuing: “For example, Christians believe that God is tri-personal – that there are in the one God three persons whom we call the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Muslims deny this doctrine, or teaching. They believe that God is a single person. So we cannot both be right. We could both be wrong. … But we cannot both be correct.”

Concluding: “Therefore, part of the job of evaluating the competing claims of Islam and Christianity will be assessing their differing concepts of God.” (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/the-concept-of-god-in-islam-and-christianity/)

I’ll embed the entire 31-minute talk by Dr. Craig (from which these quotes were taken) into this page, so that readers can play it right here, without going to the YouTube page.

Click (or tap) on the center of the following YouTube block to play the video:

If the above video does not appear in your browser, the link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcYd7U4z1os

5. The “Greatest Conceivable Being” Argument

Let’s get to the first of the three logical arguments which scholars have used in comparing Christianity and Islam. This argument is offered by Dr. William Lane Craig in the above, embedded video. (The Concept of God in Islam and Christianity at (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/the-concept-of-god-in-islam-and-christianity/; also see https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/is-the-islamic-conception-of-god-morally-inadequate/)

For this argument, I’ll focus on six points, starting here and going through section 5F:

1. Muslims and Christians agree that God, by definition, is the greatest conceivable Being; there is no other being greater than God.

2. The greatest conceivable Being would be morally-perfect and loving towards all. Dr. Craig has affirmed that, “…as the greatest conceivable being, God must be perfect. If there were any imperfection in God then he would not be the greatest conceivable being.”

Continuing: “A perfect being must be a loving being, for love is a moral perfection. It is better for a person to be loving than unloving. God, therefore, must be a perfectly loving being.” (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/the-concept-of-god-in-islam-and-christianity/)

5A. Some concepts regarding a perfectly-loving being

Hence, since it’s better to be loving than unloving, God, as a perfectly-loving Being, and as the greatest conceivable Being, would love everyone, everywhere—even those who commit evil acts. This means that He DESIRES the best for anyone and everyone, even though those who do evil deserve punishment—yet He would PREFER to forgive us rather than to punish us for the sins we commit, because of His love.

We see this preference with the Christian God in First John 1:9: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (English Standard Version) Biblically, the primary person we confess our sins to is God Himself, according to Psalm 32:5. (We’ll consider the Islamic God shortly.)

And, of course, the Christian God’s love for everyone AND His preference to forgive us is seen in John 3:16-17, which I quote here from the New King James Version: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.” Not only that; but also, He loved us first, before we ever loved Him. (1John 4:19)

We see this same principle in an Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures) verse, where God said: “I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore, I have drawn you with lovingkindness.” (Jeremiah 31:3, NASB)

5B. Returning to the “Greatest Conceivable Being” Argument

We see the Biblical or Christian God desiring the best for people in Deuteronomy 5:28-29; Isaiah 48:17-19; Luke 12:32; 24:46-48; John 3:16-17; Romans 3:21-25; 5:6-8; Ephesians 2:8-9; 1Timothy 2:3-5; 2Peter 3:9; 1John 1:9; 4:7-12, (We’ll consider the Islamic God in upcoming sections.)

Thus, we have point #3: The Christian God is loving and compassionate towards everyone (Lamentations 3:22-23), though He reproves and disciplines those who persist in sin, as any good father would (Proverbs 3:11-12; Hebrews 12:5-11; Revelation 3:19), because sin (missing the mark of doing what’s right and beneficial and in the will of God), by its very nature, hurts those who participate in it. (Romans 6:21; 8:6, 13; Galatians 6:7-10)

More specifically, the Christian God loves everyone in the entire world, without exception; that is, He DESIRES the best for anyone and everyone. (Matthew 5:43-48; John 3:16-17; Romans 5:6-8; 1John 4:7-12) Sadly, we, by our fallible human reasoning, sometimes choose what’s not best for our lives—which results in our living lives which fall short of what God desires for us. (Deuteronomy 5:28-29; Isaiah 48:17-19; Luke 12:32; 24:46-48; John 3:16-17; Romans 3:21-25; 5:6-8; Ephesians 2:8-9; 1Timothy 2:3-5; 2Peter 3:9; 1John 1:9; 4:7-12)

5C. What about Hell?

This is a tangential consideration: some may think, because of God’s universal love, that He will rescue everyone from going to Hell. He would like to. (1Timothy 2:3-4; 2Peter 3:9) But sadly, He won’t violate the free will of those who have determined—by their rejection of God—to go there. (See more about God’s fairness in this regard, in Post #4, particularly in sections 15, 16, & 17. Each section is a numbered group of paragraphs, with a heading that indicates the number and title of that section.)

If God violated our free will, this would turn us into mere robots and make the value of our existence virtually meaningless. (Cf. Deuteronomy 5:28-29; Isaiah 48:17-18; Luke 13:34; 16:19-31—after clicking on the link, scroll down the web page [at BibleGateway.com] to read the entire passage.)

However, today there’s no good reason for an honest, objective, well-informed person to go to Hell, partially because of the unquestionable evidence for a theistic God presented in Dr. Meyer’s new book—and also because of the clear evidence for New Testament reliability and the Christian God, presented in such books as:

• I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek (Crossway Books, 2004)
• The Case for Christ by journalist and New York Times Bestselling Author, Lee Strobel (Zondervan, 2016, 2017)
• On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision by Dr. William Lane Craig (David C. Cook, 2010)
• .The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ by Dr. Gary Habermas (College Press, 1996)
• The Historical Reliability of the New Testament by Dr. Craig Blomberg (B&H Academic, 2016)
• The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Drs. Gary Habermas & Michael Licona (Kregel Publications, 2004)
• The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach by Dr. Michael Licona (InterVarsity Press, 2010, 2020)

5D. The God of Islam

I should mention before these quotes that the Qur’an is the primary book of Islam; Muslims regard it as the very words of Allah, the Islamic term for God.

Dr. Craig frankly stated that, “The love of the [Biblical] Heavenly Father is impartial, universal, and unconditional. What a contrast with the God of the Qur’an! [The God of Islam] … honesty compels me to say candidly and without rancor that the God of the Qur’an is not the loving God revealed by Jesus. According to the Qur’an, God does not love sinners. This fact is emphasized repeatedly and consistently like a drumbeat throughout the pages of the Qur’an.”

Continuing: “…According to the Qur’an, God’s love is thus reserved only for those who earn it. … God’s love is reserved for the God-fearing and the good-doers; but he has no love for sinners and unbelievers. Thus, in the Islamic conception of God, God is not all-loving. His love is partial and has to be earned. The Muslim God only loves those who first love him.”

Dr. Craig added: “What would you think of a parent who said to his children, “If you measure up to my standards and do as I tell you, then I will love you”?Some of you have had parents like that, and you know the emotional scars you bear as a result of the fact that they did not give you unconditional love. But as the greatest conceivable being, as the most perfect being, the source of all goodness and love, God’s love must be unconditional, impartial, and universal. Therefore, it seems to me that the Islamic conception of God is simply morally defective. Therefore I cannot rationally accept it.” (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/the-concept-of-god-in-islam-and-christianity/)  

Now we have point #4: The God of Islam only loves people if they love him first; he only loves obedient Muslims. If a Muslim is consistently proud or disobedient, according to the Qur’an, Allah (the Arabic term for God) does not love him. Allah does not love unbelievers or transgressors or those who are proud. His love is conditional and selective. (Suras 2:98, 276; 3:32, 57; 4:36; 5:87; 6:141)

5E. Love no higher

Dr. Craig also observed that Allah’s “love thus rises no higher than the love which Jesus said even tax-collectors and unbelievers exhibit.” (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/is-the-islamic-conception-of-god-morally-inadequate/)

The Biblical passage that relates to Dr. Craig’s statement is Matthew 5:43-47, in which Jesus declares, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?” (English Standard Version)

From a first-century Jewish perspective, tax collectors were considered traitors to the Jewish people, because they were employed by the Roman Empire and charged an exorbitant tax. In Matthew 5:46, a footnote in the Contemporary English Version has about tax collectors: “These were usually Jewish people who paid the Romans for the right to collect taxes. They were hated by other Jews who thought of them as traitors to their country and to their religion.” (On this web page, scroll down to see this footnote.)

And Gentiles (i.e. non-Jewish people) were considered unbelievers by first-century Jews. Verse 47 in the paraphrased Contemporary English Version has “unbelievers” in place of “Gentiles” thusly: “If you greet only your friends, what’s so great about that? Don’t even unbelievers do that?” Therefore, Jesus was saying that, if a person only loves those who love him, his love rises no higher than the love of a traitor or an unbeliever (i.e. one who doesn’t believe in God and thus, one who doesn’t hold to any commandments about love).

5F. Qur’anic examples

Here are some examples of Allah’s perspective from the Qur’an, the primary book of Islam, shown in two different English translations because, as with most languages, Arabic words can be translated in more than one way:

• “God (or Allah) is hostile to the faithless” or “God is an enemy to unbelievers.” (Surah 2:98)
• “God (or Allah) does not love any sinful ingrate” or “God loves not the impious and sinners.” (Surah 2:276)
• “God (or Allah) does not love the faithless” or “God loves not the unbelievers.” (Surah 3:32)
• “God (or Allah) does not love the unjust” or “God loves not evildoers.” (Surah 3:57)
• “God (or Allah) does not love the arrogant showoff” or “God loves not the proud.” (Surah 4:36)
• “God (or Allah) does not love the aggressors” or “God loves not transgressors.” (Surah 5:87)
• “God (or Allah) does not love the wasteful” or “God loves not the prodigal.” (Surah 6:141)

(These examples are from https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/the-concept-of-god-in-islam-and-christianity/. However, the verse numbers on Dr, Craig’s web page are one higher than those found in many English versions of the Qur’an. Here, on this page, I use the more-common, one-lower numbers; i.e. those found in many versions.)  

5G. Conclusions

As to this distinction (about God’s love) between the Biblical God and the Islamic God, Dr. Craig specified that, “Over and over again the Qur’an declares that God does not love the very people that the Bible says God loves so much that He gave His only Son to die for them!” (Ibid.)

Thus, Dr. Craig concluded that: “The God of the Bible is an all-loving God, whose love is universal, impartial, and unconditional, while the God of Islam is not all-loving, but loves only Muslims and whose love is therefore selective, partial, and conditional.” (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/do-muslims-and-christians-worship-the-same-god/)

5. Therefore, the Christian God is not the God of Islam. Their natures are distinctly different regarding the persons whom they love.

6. Also, it is less likely that the Islamic God is the Greatest Conceivable Being than it is that the Christian God is the Greatest Conceivable Being. This was inferred as an inductive conclusion, based on clear evidence in the Biblical and Qur’anic texts. In coming to this conclusion, I did not question or doubt anyone’s sincerity; I believe that most Christians and most Muslims are sincere in what they believe.

Furthermore, aside from these considerations, every person should be respected with dignity because all of us were made in the image or likeness of God. (Genesis 1:26-27) And yet, we are imperfect: all of us make mistakes, and some of us commit serious wrongdoing. Nonetheless, we can be forgiven and restored to a right standing with God (Acts 3:19; 1John 1:9), if not also with our fellow travelers along life’s journey.

5H. A stronger, short video

Returning to the main topic: Dr. Craig had some strong words with which to describe this Islamic concept about God in the following short (3-minute) video. Click (or tap) on the center of the following YouTube block to play the video:

If this short video doesn’t appear in your browser, the link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJK3irA_sQA.

We’ll delve more-deeply into the differences between Christianity and Islam, and into the second and third logical arguments (that scholars have used), in Part 2.

6. Following my blog

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox, within minutes after a new post is online.

---

---

7. Recommended videos and books

---

7A. Videos regarding Dr. Meyer’s book and the evidence for God:

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe, an animated video from Reasonable Faith, the organization founded by Dr. William Lane Craig. (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/)

Impossible Universe: The Reality of Cosmic Fine-Tuningby Dr. Craig

An outstanding short video: Who is Nature’s Designer? By Dr. Stephen Meyer

An outstanding one-hour video: The Return of the God Hypothesis with Dr. Stephen Meyer, in which he shares evidence supporting theism and excluding deism and pantheism. This video is impressively-cogent and information-packed! It’s also where Dr. Meyer announced that a Nobel Laureate (Professor Brian Josephson) has endorsed Return of the God Hypothesis.

How does the fine-tuning of the universe point to an intelligent designer? By Dr. Craig on the John Ankerberg Show

God’s Fine-Tuning of the Universe – Dr. Hugh Ross on the John Ankerberg Show

7B. Videos and a book regarding Islam:

The Concept of God in Islam and Christianity by Dr. William Lane Craig at the National Religious Broadcasters Convention

How the Muslim Concept of God Fails by Dr. Craig

Islam: A Critique by Dr. Craig

Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross, Second Edition, by Dr. Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Baker Book House, 2002. I’m impressed with how comprehensive and insightful this book is. It covers: the basic doctrines of Orthodox Islam, a Christian response to basic Muslim beliefs, and a positive defense of the Christian perspective. The valuable appendices cover: Muslim sects and movements, Muslim religious practices, the so-called Gospel of Barnabas (which Muslims quote but which scholars call a fake or false gospel written in the late medieval period, in the 1400s or 1500s—no one refers to it anywhere until the 1500s! It is a different document than the also-spurious Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas), false Muslim accusations against the New Testament, Islam and violence, and Black Islam. This book is extremely informative!

7C. Videos and books regarding generic theism and Christian theism:

Space, Time, and How New Scientific Discoveries Prove the Presence of God by Dr. Hugh Ross

A scientist’s journey to faith – Dr. Francisco Delgado

If God created us, who created God? Dr. Hugh Ross

DNA Optimization Points to a Designer with Drs. Jeff Zweerink and Fazale Rana

Does the Universe Have a Cause? By Dr. William Lane Craig

Why Did Christ Have to Die? By Dr. William Lane Craig

Dave Bennett near-death experience: brash young man dies and sees God

An Astrophysicist (Hugh Ross) Tells How Science Led Him to Jesus

The Resurrection of Jesus: the Evidence TED talk style by Dr. Michael Licona

I of course highly recommend Dr. Stephen Meyer’s superb new book, Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind behind the Universe. (HarperOne, 2021)

Dr. Meyer’s book, however, does include a number of technical scientific discussions. There are more lay-level books presenting evidence for God that I also highly recommend:

• I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek (Crossway Books, 2004) This book does, perhaps, the best job of making the scientific evidence for God understandable; it also has many cogent perspectives on why the New Testament is historically reliable, especially on why the disciples (such as Matthew, John, and Peter) told the truth. By the way,according to Eusebius and Papias, Mark essentially recorded Peter’s account in his Gospel. Also, in Chapter 10, Drs. Geisler and Turek list the 84 facts (confirmed by historical and archeological research) found in the Book of Acts, which show that Luke was a scrupulously-accurate historian.

• The Case for Christ: Solving the Biggest Mystery of All Time by journalist and New York Times Bestselling Author, Lee Strobel (Zondervan, 2017); this is also available in a previous edition: The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Zondervan, 2016). The author, Lee Strobel, interviews top scholars in order to ascertain the historical authenticity and credibility of the New Testament and of Jesus himself. Strobel explained: “As a self-described atheist, I applied the training I had received at Yale Law School as well as my experience as legal affairs editor of the Chicago Tribune. And over time, the evidence of the world—of history, of science, of philosophy, of psychology—began to point toward the unthinkable.”

• The Case for the Real Jesus: A Journalist Investigates Current Attacks on the Identity of Christ by Lee Strobel (Zondervan, 2007). Lee interviews top scholars in order to probe more-deeply into six topics: (1) The supposedly-alternative “Gospels”; (2) The reliability of the New Testament manuscripts; (3) Alternative explanations for Jesus’ resurrection; (4) The supposed-influence of pagan religions on the story of Jesus; (5) Did Jesus fulfill the Messianic prophecies? (6) Isn’t all truth relative anyway?

• On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precisionby Dr. William Lane Craig (David C. Cook, 2010)

• A Student Edition: On Guard for Students: A Thinker’s Guide to the Christian Faith by Dr. William Lane Craig (David C. Cook, 2015)

The following books are on a more-intermediate reading level:

• The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ by Dr. Gary Habermas (College Press, 1996)

• The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Drs. Gary Habermas and Michael Licona (Kregel Publications, 2004)

• The Historical Reliability of the New Testament by Dr. Craig Blomberg (B&H Academic, 2016)

• The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach by Dr. Michael Licona (InterVarsity Press, 2010, 2020)

• Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics by Dr. William Lane Craig (Crossway Books, 2008)

• Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, by Professor Harold Hoehner of Dallas Theological Seminary (Zondervan Academic, 2010)