"How can I believe in God when there's so much suffering?"

How do you expect me to believe in God, asked Woody Allen, 'when only last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of my electric typewriter?' For a while now, at least in the Western world, the existence of any form of pain, suffering or evil has been regarded as evidence for the non-existence of God. If a good God existed, people say, these things wouldn't. But they do and, therefore, He doesn't.
https://www.bethinking.org/would-a-good-god-allow-suffering/how-can-i-believe-in-god-when-theres-so-much-suffering

CAN WE KNOW GOD IS REAL?
➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
According to Will Durant, “The greatest question of our time is not communism vs. individualism, not Europe vs. America, not even the East vs. the West; it is whether men can bear to live without God.” The importance of this question impacts us all because it is not simply an intellectual exercise, but a question of life. If God indeed exists, then it would change everything. The consequences would be major, and to ignore God, to avoid God, or to reject God could be costly. But can we really know that God is real?

As it is often framed, such a question means that we are asking for overwhelming evidence or evidence of a particular nature before we feel we can make a judgment. We may insist that if God were real God would reveal himself on our terms, whether through science, or the arts, or philosophy. Yet my response would be that we should defer judgment, hold back our prejudices and our desired terms, and follow the trail of intimations to where they may lead. Let me lay some foundations.

Since the beginning of time until the present, the overwhelming majority of people have believed that God exists. This is not a compelling argument, but it is nonetheless an occurrence that demands explanation. What’s more, many scientists and philosophers continue to see overwhelming evidence of design in the natural world. The complexity, order, and life-sustaining factors are too significant to be answered by chance. If you watched a movie and were clearly awed by it, but were then told that it just came together by chance, you would scoff at the suggestion! The beauty, the plot, the detail, and the coherence tell you plainly that an intelligent agent was involved. As the old song says, “Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could.”

Our encounter with nature, life, and the sheer majesty of the universe invites reflection, and often generates a sense of awe. Albert Einstein said, “The mathematical precision of the universe reveals the mathematical mind of God.” The apostle Paul wrote to the Romans, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that we are without excuse.” The information and data points to design; the order and creativity suggest a Creator. And the Scriptures describe a holy and personal being.

But can we know God? The Psalmist said, “Taste and see that the Lord is good.” Paul said to the Romans, “It is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.” God is not an abstract idea, a philosophical concept, or a proposition. God is the Lord of life and the Lord of all and can be known to those who will humble themselves.

Believing is a starting point for a new, real, and active relationship with the living God. The God who is seen in creation, hinted at in conscience, revealed in Jesus, testified to by witnesses, and written about in Scripture, can be known practically in the life of the Holy Spirit, given to us by faith and repentance.

Can we know that God is real? I believe the answer is yes, but on God’s terms, not ours. And Lord willing, one day we shall see fully, even as we are fully known.

 

Stuart McAllister is vice president of training and special projects at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Atlanta, Georgia.



Imagine an atheist chemist in the 19th century using scientific methods to study water. After conducting his experiments, he concludes water is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. In other words, he discovers water is H20. He used secular scientific principles to gain a piece of knowledge previously unknown to the world. Is his discovery anti-Christian? Does it violate biblical truth? Is this new piece of knowledge against God?
The answer to all those questions is a resounding “no.” The scientist discovered something true about the world we live in. Although he didn’t use a biblical or religious source, this does not detract from its credibility. If something is discovered to be true, it is true for you, it is true for me, and it’s true for God. A scientific discovery made by an atheist scientist is just as true as the biblical teaching that God is love or that Christ died for our sins. All truth is God’s truth, regardless of how one gains that knowledge.

https://www.str.org/article/all-truth-gods-truth#.W6IBwMlX7gA

This lecture was given by Professor William Lane Craig at All Souls Church, London as a part of UCCF's 2007 Reasonable Faith Tour. The lecture is almost 40 minutes in duration and is followed by a 30 minute question and answer session.
The transcript below is slightly different to the audio talk but is from a talk of the same title and covers largely the same ground.

Transcript

Is there any evidence to show that Christianity is true? Bill Craig considers the question and describes the evidence that convinces him.

I. ‘Not enough evidence, God!  Not enough evidence!’

The great atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell was once asked what he would say if he found himself standing before God on the judgement day and God asked him, "Why didn’t you believe in Me?" Russell replied, "I would say, ‘Not enough evidence, God!  Not enough evidence!'"
As I travel around North America and Europe speaking on university campuses, I think that most of the non-Christian university professors that I meet would probably say the same thing. And this attitude is in turn communicated to the
https://www.bethinking.org/is-christianity-true/the-evidence-for-christianity

Christianity is just a psychological crutch!' This is one of a group of common accusations framed against Christianity, which is why it is so important to examine and distinguish if there's any truth in it. Is Christianity just a crutch for the weak, unintelligent and scared, or is it far more than that?
One of the most popular proponents of this hypothesis was Sigmund Freud, the renowned Austrian Psychiatrist who had this to say about religious beliefs:

They are illusions, fulfilments of the oldest, strongest, and most urgent wishes of mankind... As we already know; the terrifying impression of helplessness in childhood aroused the need for protection – for protection through love – which was provided by the father.... Thus the benevolent rule of divine providence allays our fear of the dangers of life. [1]

https://www.bethinking.org/is-christianity-true/is-christianity-a-psychological-crutch

The Rationale Behind 'Have You Got the Whole Story?'

I don't want people to walk away with the idea that theism is a plausible hypothesis; I want to confront people with the Christ who is Lord of the Universe. If people are going to feel the full force of His claim on their lives then they will need to see how he fits within the unfolding story of salvation from creation to new creation. It is as simple as that. They won't know how to make sense of the details of claims of Christ until we set those claims within the context of the unfolding story of the Bible. Because of this my habit has been to start any series of apologetic type talks with this overview of the Bible.
https://www.bethinking.org/is-christianity-true/have-you-got-the-whole-story

One of the central claims of Christianity is that Jesus of Nazareth was the incarnate Son of God who died on the cross to atone for the sins of humanity and rose bodily from the dead. Our acceptance of these claims depends on whether or not the New Testament documents are reliable historical sources about Jesus. It is the purpose of this chapter to argue that it is reasonable to accept the substantial historicity of the New Testament.[1]
Detailed works have been written on this topic, but such detail is not possible here. Rather, this chapter will discuss the main features of five arguments bearing on New Testament historicity. Sources for further study will be offered in the notes. I will not discuss the archaeological confirmation of the New Testament or the extra-biblical evidence for the historicity of Jesus. These important facts have been nicely summarized elsewhere.[2]
For our purposes, let us assume that the New Testament is a collection of twenty-seven separate historical sources which, in turn, may have written or oral sources behind them. We will make no assumption which takes the New Testament as a divinely inspired document, although I believe such a position can be defended.[3]

General Tests for Historicity

https://www.bethinking.org/is-the-bible-reliable/the-historicity-of-the-new-testament

The authorship of the first four books of the New Testament has fascinated scholars for centuries. If the authors were eyewitnesses, one could assume greater reliability.
If not, then questions are naturally raised about the historicity of details in the writings. Because the first three Gospels are so similar, many theories have been proposed and argued to explain the sources of verbatim sections, as well as the unique material. Did Mark rely on Peter for eyewitness details? Luke admits his use of other sources, but did he use Mark or Matthew or both? What about Matthew and John? 
In this highly informative and amusing lecture, Dr Peter Williams presents new and old evidence that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts, concentrating on details that would be practically impossible to get right otherwise
https://www.bethinking.org/is-the-bible-reliable/new-evidence-the-gospels-were-based-on-eyewitness-accounts

The Delusions of Atheists

In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.[1] (Charles Darwin)

In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yetpeople who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of such views.[2] (Albert Einstein)

It enjoys no observational support whatever. What is referred to as M-theory isn't even a theory. Indeed it's hardly science. It's a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations … I think the book is misleading.[3] (Roger Penrose on Stephen Hawking's book The Grand Design)

Kepler breaks into enthusiasm at being the first to recognise the beauty of God's works. Thus the new way of thinking [science] has nothing to do with any turn away from religion.[4] (Werner Heisenberg)

Science is reticent when it comes to the question of the great unity of which we somehow form a part. The popular name for it in our time is God.[5] (Erwin Schrödinger)

Some atheists claim science supports their views. Or does science point to the existence of God?



https://www.bethinking.org/does-science-disprove-god/the-delusion-of-atheists

Those who want to dig into historicity of gospel, here is link where u will find audio lectures, video links, pdf, PowerPoint https://apologetics315.com/2012/11/audio-resources-by-tim-mcgrew/

 
THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF APOLOGETICS
part 1
 
 
“Men despise religion.  They hate it and are afraid it may be true.  The cure for this is first to show that religion is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect.  Next make it attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then show that it is.  Worthy of reverence because it really understands human nature.  Attractive because it promises true good.”
—Blaise Pascal, Pensées, #12/187.
 
 
I.          The Definition of Apologetics
 
A.        The rational defense of the Christian worldview as objectively true and existentially or subjectively engaging.  More generally, to commendation of Christianity in the face of unbelief or doubt.
 
B.        Concerns defining Christian truth-claims that one must believe in order to be a Christian
 
1.         Essentials of orthodoxy:  Trinity, Incarnation, biblical authority, justification by faith, etc.
 
2.         Truth-claim:  propositions affirming the existence or nonexistence of certain states of affairs
 
a.         Different than a sentence; many sentences affirm of declare the same proposition (More on this in D. Groothuis, Truth Decay, chapter four)
 
b.         Truth-claims are different than questions, emotive utterances, commands, etc.
 
 
II.        Relation of Apologetics to Theology
 
A.        Apologetics is dependent on theology for its content (essential doctrines), which are defended as true
 
B.        Theology’s ideal is to systematically and coherently articulate what Scripture teaches
 
C.        We need a theology of apologetics
 
·         Theological truths (such as human depravity, general revelation, divine transcendence and immanence) guide one’s understanding and application of apologetics
 
 
III.       Relation of Apologetics to Philosophy
 
A.        Comes under one category of philosophy—philosophy of religion: the rational investigation of religious truth-claims
 
·         But not all philosophy of religion is Christian apologetics; may be done in service of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, atheism, etc.
 
B.        Attempts to rationally justify theological statements through philosophical means (theistic arguments, defending the coherence of doctrines, such as the Trinity or Incarnation, etc.)
 
·         Need not be propaganda or proselytizing, but may be
 
C.        Resurgence of Christians in philosophy in the last two-three decades.  See James Kelly Clark, ed., Philosophers Who Believe (InterVarsity Press, 1993); Thomas Morris, God and the Philosophers, ed.  (Oxford, 1995).  Academic journals:  Faith and Philosophy; Philosophia Christi
 
 
IV.       Relation of Apologetics to Evangelism
 
A.        Apologetics used when necessary to remove obstacles to evangelism: doubts, misunderstandings (Matthew 28:18 – 20)
 
B.        Evangelism declares Christian truth and invites unbelievers to embrace it; apologetics defends Christian truth and clarifies its meaning
 
C.        Apologetics as pre-evangelism (Francis A. Schaeffer)
 
http://www.relyonchrist.com/Lecture/Audio/01.mp3

This talk covers some of the basic concepts of truth, logic and persuasion which are helpful when we are 'defending and communicating the faith'. The notes below highlight a few of the issues covered.
Truth – what corresponds with reality
Laws of logic

Law of non-contradiction – something cannot be so and not so at the same time in the same way
Law of the excluded middle – either-or

Discovering the truth by reason, deduction, testing – coming to a tentative conclusion
Absolute 'proof' exists only in mathematics
Scientific 'proof' – looks at the apparent weight of evidence – science moves on
Areas for doubt caused by

– sensory confusion, memory failure, etc. 
– bias
– our limited understanding
– our limited knowledge
– limits from being a part of the universe
– our limited view of the past

Two books of truth – book of Nature and book of Scripture
In Scripture, God spoke through individuals – not dictate Scripture
Nature – Experiments 
Scripture – Interpretation or Hermeneutics
Argument – how we tease out truth logically, by reasoning and deduction
Asking "What is the evidence for that?"
Probability – is something more likely than it’s negation.
Knowledge – warranted true belief.
Some beliefs cannot be demonstrated to be true – properly basic beliefs: our own physical existence, other minds are real, reality of the past and validity of memory, etc.
Propositional truth: assertions that something is true: God exists; God appeared in history in Jesus; God will judge the world.
Biblical approach of apostles: persuasion is needed, not just proclamation. Includes refuting falsehoods.
Are our beliefs well grounded? 
https://www.bethinking.org/truth/why-bother-arguing

Overview of the Lecture

The rise of the 'New Atheism' has stimulated a new interest in Christian apologetics, both in the academy and the churches. The appeal to science in the writings of leading 'New Atheists', such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, is reflected in two apologetic strategies.
In the first place, the use made of science to defend atheism by Dawkins and Dennett has been challenged as unrepresentative and improper. In the second, defences of the rationality of faith have been developed which reflect inductive or abductive approaches, paralleling those used in the natural sciences.
This lecture explores the ways in which the natural sciences have been used in recent Christian apologetics, and assesses their significance.
https://www.bethinking.org/apologetics/new-atheism-new-apologetics

My Science Teacher Says 'Science Has Buried God'

When I was at secondary school, one of the science teachers ran an assembly where he asserted that evolution has done away with the need to believe in a God. Many of my friends afterwards were keen to press this point with me – “how can you believe this rubbish in light of science?”
The only time Jesus was mentioned in my science lessons was when we learnt how radiocarbon dating proved the Turin Shroud (which was claimed to be the burial cloth of Jesus) was a medieval fake. If God is mentioned in science lessons, it’s often in the sense of ‘until science came along, people used to tell fairy stories like this to explain it’.  
The problem with this kind of view is that it starts with a massive assumption: that science and Christianity are fundamentally opposed to each other. Often there is a second belief too, something along the lines of ‘scientific evidence is the only real evidence’. That is, if you can’t test it in the lab, it’s not true.
So here are some questions for you to think through, and to raise with your teacher if this issue arises in class. Each question is followed by a bit of explanation of the issue it’s exploring. (For more practical tips on approaching and speaking with your teachers, check out Engaging Well with Teachers).

How can you be so sure that science will always point the way you think it does right now?

Science is constantly developing and changing as new research is conducted and new information comes to light. Although people talk about ‘scientific proof’, science itself doesn’t actually prove anything. The most up to date science simply represents the best understanding we currently have of the way things work. So whether we believe in God or not, we should be careful about hanging too much on any current understanding. A good example is the fact that for a long time it was widely held that the universe was eternal, that it had always been here. Later, when evidence for a beginning of the universe became increasingly hard to ignore, scientists found they had to change their thinking. Who knows how future discoveries may change way we understand the world

If scientific evidence is the only real evidence, how do you handle the fact you can’t prove that statement in the lab?

Those who make this argument (perhaps in slightly different words) probably don’t realise that it defeats itself. It is impossible to prove that only scientific evidence is valid because you can’t get scientific evidence for that statement. In asking this question you may stimulate a discussion about how we know things at all, and the fact that we all believe things we cannot prove.

If science is so fundamentally opposed to religion, how do you account for the fact so many influential scientists have been religious?

As we look at the history of science we see that many of those who drove the development of science were religious. In fact, the idea that the world around us can be understood was originally based on belief in God. C.S. Lewis put it this way: “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver” (Miracles, p.169). Science flowed out of a desire to understand the world God had made. You can, of course, be a scientist without this belief, but the continued involvement of religious believers in science wouldn't make sense if science had once and for all done away with God.

The great cosmologist Allan Sandage, who won astronomy’s version of the Nobel Prize, concluded that God is ‘the explanation for the miracle of existence.’ Sir Fred Hoyle, who devised the steady state theory of the universe to avoid the existence of God, eventually became a believer in an Intelligent Designer of the universe. The astrophysicist Hugh Ross, who got his doctorate in astronomy from the University of Toronto and did research on quasars and galaxies, said scientific and historical evidence ‘deeply rooted my confidence in the veracity of the Bible.’ Robert Jastrow, a confessed agnostic and director of the Mount Wilson observatory and founder of the Goddard Space Institute, concluded the Big Bang points toward God. And I like what mathematical physicist Robert Griffiths said: ‘If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn’t much use.’— Norman Geisler (from, The Case for Faith)

WHY DOES IT MATTER?
---------------------------

I recently ran across three stories—and three individuals—in Mark 5 that surprised me.  Mark first introduces us to a demon-possessed man, who upon seeing Jesus on the shore at a distance, immediately runs to him and falls upon his knees before him.  Jesus heals him, sends him home to his family, and then gets back into a boat with his disciples.

Next Mark tells us, “When Jesus had again crossed over by boat to the other side of the lake…one of the synagogue rulers, named Jairus, came there.  Seeing Jesus, he fell at his feet and pleaded earnestly with him, ‘My little daughter is dying.  Please come and put your hands on her so that she will be healed and live.'”  And how does Jesus respond to this man?  Mark says simply, “So Jesus went with him.”

However, before Jesus can get to Jairus’s house, a large crowd presses upon him, including another desperate person seeking his help—this time a woman bleeding for twelve years.  Writes Mark, “She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, because she thought, ‘If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.’  Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering.  At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him.  He turned around in the crowd and asked, ‘Who touched my clothes?'”

Jesus’s question prompts his disciples to ask with urgency and impatience, “You see the people crowding against you…and yet you can ask, ‘Who touched me?'”  Do you hear what they communicate?  “Jesus, we are trying to get to the home of this powerful synagogue ruler before its too late and his child dies, and you stop to ask who touched you in this throng of people?  What does it matter?  Why do you care?”  But Jesus kept looking around, Mark observes, to see who had done it.  “Then the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell at his feet and, trembling with fear, told him the whole truth.”

So here again in this chapter, as with the demon-possessed man and Jairus, we see another desperate person literally falling at Jesus’s feet.  I hadn’t noticed this particular intimate detail before, but given how different each of these individuals are—a powerful yet enslaved man, an influential synagogue ruler, and a destitute woman with a disease—their identical response to Jesus is even more striking.  They realize their utter desperation; they know they are in the presence of the power of God,

And how does Jesus respond to this prostrate, trembling woman?  He tenderly calls her “daughter” and says, “Your faith has healed you.”  Jesus’s reply indicates that he has not only granted her healing, but also salvation: She is now part of the family of God, for she has become a daughter of God.  Although Jesus is urged to the dying daughter of a prominent ruler, he stops to attend to another daughter—a woman of no means, having spent all she had to no avail.  Suffering with bleeding for twelve years, she is undoubtedly a social outcast.  Yet Jesus esteems her and her faith before all, and then blesses her: “Go in peace and be freed from your suffering.”

Mark’s poignant description of this encounter provides another window into the ministry of Jesus.  For notice how his disciples’ impertinent question stands in stark contrast to Jesus’s patient compassion to seek out who had touched him.  Certainly Mark is speaking truthfully and vulnerably by declaring “his disciples”—and not merely “some” of them—posed this question.  Furthermore, Jesus’s attention to this woman once again reveals the nature of the kingdom of God (and an important theme in Mark’s Gospel).

One person in a large crowd touches Jesus.  The disciples insinuate, “What does it matter?  Why do you care?”  But one person matters to Jesus.  He cares; he seeks out even one, and attends to her.  Because Jesus doesn’t distinguish between the powerful and the powerless;

ne who falls before him shall be called “daughter” or “son.”  O “how great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God!” (1 John 3:1).  And that is what we are!

 

Danielle DuRant is director of research and writing at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Atlanta, Georgia. 

1. Persecution is bound up with Christ’s persecution.

Jesus made that clear on His way to Jerusalem when he told his disciples that there he would “suffer many things . . . and be killed, and on the third day be raised” (Matt. 16:21). And then he told his followers that they were, in fact, to follow him by taking up their cross—that is, by fully identifying with him, whatever that would cost them and wherever that would take them. Suffering for the sake of the gospel is a way in which we identify with Christ’s sufferings—and he, in turn, identifies with the sufferings of His people. “Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.” (1 Pet. 4:12–13).


https://corechristianity.com/resource-library/articles/10-things-you-should-know-about-persecution

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/30/17936564/new-atheism-religion-science-god-john-gray

New Atheism is a literary movement that sprung up in 2004, led by prominent authors like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens. Although they were right about a lot of things, the New Atheists missed something essential about the role of religion. For them, religion was just a protoscience — our first attempt at biology and history and physics. But religion is so much more than a set of claims about the world, and you can’t fully understand if you don’t account for that.
John Gray is a British philosopher whose latest book, Seven Types of Atheism, explores the history of atheism. It’s both an affirmation and a critique of atheism, written by an atheist who is aware of all its contradictions.