In weniger als einer Minute können Sie mit dem Lesen von Gravity True For You But Not For Me (English Edition) auf Ihrem Kindle beginnen. Sie haben noch keinen Kindle? Hier kaufen oder mit einer unserer kostenlosen Kindle Lese-Apps sofort zu lesen anfangen.

An Ihren Kindle oder ein anderes Gerät senden


Kostenlos testen

Jetzt kostenlos reinlesen

An Ihren Kindle oder ein anderes Gerät senden

Der Artikel ist in folgender Variante leider nicht verfügbar
Keine Abbildung vorhanden für
Keine Abbildung vorhanden

Gravity True For You But Not For Me (English Edition) [Kindle Edition]

Michael Edwards

Kindle-Preis: EUR 1,02 Inkl. MwSt. und kostenloser drahtloser Lieferung über Amazon Whispernet

Kostenlose Kindle-Leseanwendung Jeder kann Kindle Bücher lesen  selbst ohne ein Kindle-Gerät  mit der KOSTENFREIEN Kindle App für Smartphones, Tablets und Computer.

Geben Sie Ihre E-Mail-Adresse oder Mobiltelefonnummer ein, um die kostenfreie App zu beziehen.

Kunden, die diesen Artikel gekauft haben, kauften auch

Seite von Zum Anfang
Diese Einkaufsfunktion wird weiterhin Artikel laden. Um aus diesem Karussell zu navigieren, benutzen Sie bitte Ihre Überschrift-Tastenkombination, um zur nächsten oder vorherigen Überschrift zu navigieren.



Evidence For Gods Existence and Identity

Newly edited version 3-9-12. There are many contradictory beliefs about God that claim to be the truth. But since truth never contradicts itself, who really has the truth? Utilizing objective evidence like a detective does in an investigation, the facts point to the one belief that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. One truth that applies to everyone if they believe it or not. Follow the evidence and see for yourself.

Setting feelings and what others believe aside for a moment learn why objective evidence is the best way to find truth in any investigation, including the truth about God. See for yourself exactly why Christianity is the most reasonable belief available based on the facts and why it applies to everyone, everywhere even if they do not believe it. Learn the two things we all encounter daily that the Bible states is absolute proof of God's existence and leave every person without excuse, even those who have never read the Bible. Learn why trying to be a good person is not good enough.

Weigh the objective evidence for yourself and make a reasonable decision about God and then pass the evidence on to others so they can discover the truth. Everyone deserves the opportunity to examine the evidence for themselves.

Perfect for the seeker and the believer who want to eliminate doubts and have a reasonable assurance that their faith is actually placed in the truth.If you are a believer you have an obligation to share the truth. Let this book show your friends and family the sound foundation your belief rests upon.

It's not about religion, it's about truth.



Es gibt noch keine Kundenrezensionen auf
5 Sterne
4 Sterne
3 Sterne
2 Sterne
1 Sterne
Die hilfreichsten Kundenrezensionen auf (beta) 4.5 von 5 Sternen  82 Rezensionen
18 von 20 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
4.0 von 5 Sternen A Good Introduction to Apologetics--re-edited 10. Februar 2012
Von Craig Ewoldt - Veröffentlicht auf
Verifizierter Kauf
Update: As noted in a comment to this review, the kindle edition has been re-edited, and I am changing my review to reflect this. Good job, nice arguments. Thanks for making it available to us.

This book is a nice summary of Christian apologetic arguments, but . . .

I didn't realize how distracting it is to read a poorly edited book. There are many incomplete and run on sentences. Punctuation is frequently improper. Some words are misused--for example, conscience v. conscious. Others are misspelled--Regan rather than Reagan. And then there were the 1017 silver dollars that if scattered would cover Texas two feet deep.

There are general editing issues as well. For example, some of the headings are confusing or not to the point. One heading was "Is the New Testament Accurate?" while the next was "Is the New Testament True?" The first section was about the accuracy of the manuscript evidence, while the second was about the historical accuracy.

Some of the arguments also need to be strengthened or restructured. Sorry I didn't note these so can't be specific.

Like the previous reviewer, I commend the author on his research and work. But poor writing also brings into question the quality of the scholarship. The book has promise. Like the previous reviewer, I would encourage a good editing job and a second edition. We need these kinds of books.
11 von 12 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
3.0 von 5 Sternen A free tour of basic Christian apologetics, but with an evangelical plea 11. Dezember 2012
Von Muddy Moe - Veröffentlicht auf
Verifizierter Kauf
Understand up front that I am a non-believer, but that I read this book in full and will attempt to review the book on the merits of content and writing style rather than any agenda. I choose the book because I am interested in both apologetics and counter-apologetics and because it was free.

In the following I'll give you an idea of what to expect. If this were a book of fiction, I would post a "spoiler" warning here.

The book appears to be heavily influenced by I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Geisler and Turek, by Jim Marshall's website, by William Lane Craig, and to a smaller degree by Michael Behe's thoughts on intelligent design. Along the way he mentions other popular voices in the apologetics community, such as Ray Comfort, Francis Collins, and Christian rapper LeCrae. The reader will be given a short tour through the kalam cosmological argument, the ontological argument, moral arguments for god, and general criticism of evolution or naturalistic "bias" in science. This is the first third or so of the book, which is also the most interesting portion of the book to me by far. The author does about as good of a job as possible restating these arguments. However, the arguments themselves have amble counter arguments and by their nature engage in arguments from ignorance or special pleading. Moreover, even if one accepts a cosmological argument for god, it is quite a leap to conclude that this god must be ominipotent or personal in nature.

And that's where the author heads next with moral arguments for god, arguing that the moral code is written in our conscience. What follows is a rather lengthy defense of Christian Biblical historicity and accuracy. I found this section less interesting, mostly because the logical arguments are less rigorous, relying more on general assertions such that the Bible is well studied and that archaeology confirms its factual historicity. The author glosses over many difficulties with regard to the historicity issues altogether. Moreover, the author wants us to leap from accepting his assertions that the Bible is historically accurate, to accepting the miracles in The Bible, including (of course) the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I think many devout believers would admit that this is a leap of faith, rather than logic.

The last quarter (I'm estimating) of the book is more theological in nature, resting the case that god has been proven to exist, that the Bible's supremacy as the word of god has been proven, and that the claims of Jesus as the resurrected son of god have been proven. The author deals with total depravity of man, heaven, hell, the need for salvation by grace, and the requirement of faith in Christ to obtain that grace. I found this my least favorite part of the book, as I've heard it all before and it is a bit preachy in tone. Moreover, despite the authors' continued stressing of Christ's love for us and desire to save us, the capriciousness of god for damning us all to hell for even the slightest moral imperfection is inescapable. Infinite extreme torture as judgment for finite "sin" is impossible to justify. The author gives it a good shot, but it's a tough stance to take.

Overall the style of the writing was pleasant and sources are attributed well. The author makes his case with passion, but generally overstates the case by comparing acceptance of the existence of god (much less the Christian god) to acceptance of the force of gravity. For some readers, these arguments may be new and impressive. But apologetics is a field where truly new ideas are rare, and all arguments have impressive counters. The existence of god is a subject that has been hotly debated for centuries. This book is a good sampler of popular Christian arguments (particularly of Wm Lane Craig, Geisler and Turek). But it will not settle the debate.

I rate it three stars because the writing is well done and the research is evident. However, it does not rate higher because the Biblical accuracy portion is dull. The author makes assertions for which counter arguments are easy to imagine, but just moves on. Why Christianity is true but other major religions have it all wrong is not explored in any depth. The reader is just told that The Bible is accurate ... the Bible has it right .... no need to look around, because there's only one truth and its in The Bible. Moreover, the book essentially descends into an extended religious tract in the last 25% or so of the book. A casual reader interested only in the apologetics may want to bow out after the moral arguments.
14 von 19 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
2.0 von 5 Sternen Nailing down Jell-O; I hope no Christians try to use this book to assist their apologetics.... 9. Februar 2012
Von Allan Sherwood - Veröffentlicht auf
Verifizierter Kauf
First, I'd like to qualify my review: I am a Believer, and I consider myself one who speaks with God and Jesus regularly in prayer, I serve in a church, and I read and know my Bible. So I am NOT rating this book poorly based on my feelings of "Christianity", instead of it's content.

I rated it poorly because of its mechanics and purpose.

I will tell you positives, enough to gain 2 stars:

1. It's well put-together.
2. The Author has done a lot of research. A lot.
3. The Author's literary voice comes out strongly, and it's practiced, polished, and rational.
4. The Author uses many sources to refer to, and uses Logic.

The Problems come from the book's Premise:

He likens the idea of "God" to the idea of "Gravity": How can a person choose to "believe" in God, like they don't choose to "believe" in Gravity?

Well, Gravity is experienced in the womb. Gravity is quantifiable, measurable, able to be tested, and explained. One can use logic to denote its existence and predict its influence.

God is not so easily quantified, measurable, tested, or explained. Kind of like trying to nail down Jell-O: energy and resources are wasted on something that will end up falling apart. He is neither provable, nor can you predict God. Put God in a box, and He will surprise you by still being outside of it, as well as part of the box.

God is, for the bulk of Humanity, an Emotional force. He has Spiritual impact. (If this were not true, there would not be crying in church or joy at baptisms. Likewise, atheists would not get angry with Believers when they talk about God.) Therefore their concepts and language descriptors (for 99% of us) are in an emotional, esoteric space in our brains and character, regardless of whether or not we choose to believe. Logic is a different function of human intellect; Logic can NEVER assist Emotion. Use Logic with a crying Two-Year-Old. How far do you get? Nowhere.

His presuppositions are misplaced. Example? Kindle Location 547, his presupposition is that all (or certainly a majority) scientists bias out God, in "Overcoming Evidence of Bias"; this section tries to point out that many scientists "rule God out before they start, then conclude He doesn't exist". He SAYS it, but doesn't GET it. It comes down to a matter of faith, do they believe or don't they? Then they go from there.

Well, Duh. Science is all about ruling out EVERYTHING but specific, controlled differences between a sample (the Control part) and its variation (the Experiment part).

For the true test to prove God's existence, you'd have to design an Experiment with particles that can detect the presence of God's influencing factors, set up a laboratory situation where NO God-Influence-Force particles can do their thing, contrasted against a different Lab where Any or ALL God-Influence-Force particles can do their thing.

Ain't Gonna Happen. Since "GOD" is supposed to be EVERYWHERE, there could never be a situation (using Science's rules) to ever create a No-God place. And Vice-Versa: If there is NO God, then He wouldn't be ANYWHERE, therefore the God-Influence-Force would NEVER be present, and the experiment is a loss.

Logic has been likened to a Knife: you "cut away" what is extra, to get down to the bones of the subject matter. First, Emotion continually changes. Spirit changes. They cannot be removed, cut out, negated, ruled out, How people FEEL about God will never be convinced by ANY logic, because they can not be cut. The person is cut; they feel.

Please, sir, reexamine your presuppositions.
2 von 2 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
5.0 von 5 Sternen Exceptionally well done. 3. September 2013
Von Jerry - Veröffentlicht auf
Verifizierter Kauf
Short, concise, to the point, excellent compilation of arguments from top apologists and folks standing up for the Christian faith. SOMETIMES a little too sure, as Christians can be--if that was softened a bit it would be an even better tool for standing up for the faith, but still very well done. Looking forward to reading his other book which I recently purchased.
1 von 1 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
4.0 von 5 Sternen The Preponderance of Evidence in a Faith Based Construct 15. Mai 2014
Von Kindle Customer - Veröffentlicht auf
Verifizierter Kauf
There were many things I liked about this book and some things I didn't like. I don't agree with a lot of it but I found it interesting to listen to the arguments presented and it has certainly got me thinking.
Analogies are often effective in illustrating a point, especially in situations of hot debate where the goal is to defeat your opponent by the use of tactics not necessarily aligned with finding the truth. I counted many examples of flawed logic but unless you are familiar with these, the flawed logic not only goes unnoticed but works as intended as a convincing argument.
Example: An unlikely event, say winning a lottery, is used to illustrate the unlikely probability of a universe or life created by chance or natural causes. The probability of winning the CA State lottery was used which is one in millions. Not very likely but I'm assuming someone wins on a fairly regular basis. The flaw here is in using the argument of a single person winning when in fact hundreds of thousands participate. That is, the unlikely probability of the creation of life at a particular moment is almost zero but much, much larger when the wait time is eternity. OK, one chance in 10^138 is much larger odds for the 122 constants that make life possible but not when compared to eternity.
Also, holding up the legal system as the standard for truth finding I found comical. Do they get it right every time and isn't the US legal system all about winning rather than truth seeking (insert appropriate lawyer joke)? I ask myself why a holder of truth uses such flawed tactics?
Then there is the charge of proving atheism. Good grief, it is impossible to prove a negative, that something doesn't exist. Think about this; someone has never broken the speed limit while driving. The fact they have never gotten a speeding ticket is no proof and unless they have had a speed recording device and route map for their lifetime of driving it is impossible to prove. It is amusing that one faith based group beats up on another.
Science cannot prove the existence of God, it isn't testable in a scientific venue. This is flipped around to attack science in the question, why can't scientists see God in the facts? Scientists don't rule out God, they rule out God as a scientifically testable phenomenon which is unfairly labeled as contempt. Another flawed analogy and one of many examples in the use of non-sequitur.
Speaking of which brings up another example. Namely, the conclusion that intelligence is not an indicator of truth from the fact that both sides of the belief in God contain very intelligent people. Consider the possibility of "not knowing" as a third alternative. No, lets polarize the argument and its either true or false. Framing the debate this way is another questionable tactic.
If the presence of a conscience and good proves the existence of God then why doesn't the presence of evil and the lack of conscience in the same population prove there is no God?
I'm not an atheist and I believe in the Christian philosophy towards my fellow man which according to this book, damns me to an eternity in hell. Oh well! My recommendation, do a logical fallacy sweep on the next revision.
Waren diese Rezensionen hilfreich?   Wir wollen von Ihnen hören.

Kunden diskutieren

Das Forum zu diesem Produkt
Diskussion Antworten Jüngster Beitrag
Noch keine Diskussionen

Fragen stellen, Meinungen austauschen, Einblicke gewinnen
Neue Diskussion starten
Erster Beitrag:
Eingabe des Log-ins

Kundendiskussionen durchsuchen
Alle Amazon-Diskussionen durchsuchen

Ähnliche Artikel finden