I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist

1.Geisler and Turek define truth as 'that which corresponds to reality.' Why is this 'correspondence theory of truth' important to establish before discussing God or religion? What goes wrong in a conversation if the parties can't agree on this?

1.The authors argue that we should believe whatever is most reasonable given the evidence — that we should proportion our confidence to the strength of the case. Does this sound obvious, or does it challenge assumptions you've held about faith?

1.Geisler and Turek use the acronym SURGE to summarize the scientific evidence for a beginning of the universe (Second law of thermodynamics, Universe is expanding, Radiation afterglow, Great galaxy seeds, Einstein's theory of General Relativity). Before looking at each point, why does the *beginning* of the universe matter so much for the question of God's existence?

1.The authors describe the universe as 'fine-tuned' for life, pointing to dozens of physical constants that must be set with extraordinary precision for life to be possible. Were you previously aware of this argument? How did reading the details of it affect you?

1.The authors shift from cosmological fine-tuning to biological information, arguing that the DNA molecule contains a 'language' with more information than an encyclopedia. Why does the presence of information — as opposed to mere chemical complexity — matter so much for this argument?

1.The authors take on Darwinian macroevolution directly in this chapter. What are the five main lines of evidence they examine, and what is their overall verdict on whether the evidence supports an unguided, naturalistic account of the diversity of life?

1.The authors present the moral argument for God as follows: (1) Every law has a lawgiver; (2) There is a moral law; (3) Therefore, there is a Moral Lawgiver. Which premise do most people find easiest to dispute, and how do the authors defend it?

1.The authors argue that if you have already accepted that God created the universe out of nothing, then miracles are not a problem — they are, in fact, trivially easy for such a Being. Do you find this argument decisive, or does it seem to beg the question?

1.Geisler and Turek argue that we should evaluate the New Testament documents by the same historical standards applied to any other ancient document — not by a special skepticism reserved for religious texts. Do you think most people actually apply this standard? Why or why not?

1.The authors argue that the Gospel writers had both the ability and the motivation to tell the truth — they were eyewitnesses or associates of eyewitnesses, and many of them died for their testimony. How does the willingness to die for a claim differ from simply dying for a belief, and why does it matter?

1.The authors list ten reasons for trusting the New Testament writers. Without looking at the chapter, how many can you recall? Then compare your list to the text — what did you remember, and what surprised you?

1.Geisler and Turek build on C.S. Lewis's famous 'Liar, Lunatic, or Lord' trilemma. What is the argument, and why do many people today prefer an unspoken fourth option — 'Legend'? How do the authors deal with the Legend option?

1.The authors present Christianity not as one option among many spiritually equivalent paths, but as the conclusion demanded by the evidence. How does the cumulative structure of the argument — each chapter building on the last — support this conclusion differently than a single isolated argument would?

1.Geisler and Turek organize their argument as a twelve-step progression. Without looking at the book, can you reconstruct the main steps of the argument in order? Which step do you feel you now understand most confidently? Which step would you still struggle to explain to a friend?