Answering Atheism: Evolution explains life without God.

Today's popular champions of atheism are often called New Atheists, because they don't just deny God's existence (as the old atheists did)—they consider it their duty to scorn and ridicule religious belief. But there's nothing really "new" about their arguments. They're the same basic objections to theism that mankind has wrestled with for centuries.

We don't need new answers for this aggressive modern strain of unbelief: We need a new approach.

In Answering Atheism, Trent Horn responds to that need with a fresh and useful resource for the God debate, combining a thorough refutation of atheist claims with a skillfully constructed case for theism based on reason and common sense. Just as important, he advocates a charitable approach that respects atheists' sincerity and good will—making this book suitable not just for believers but for skeptics and seekers too.

Meticulously researched, and street-tested in Horn's work as a pro-God apologist, Answering Atheism tackles all the major issues of the debate, including:

Reconciling human evil and suffering with the existence of a loving, all-powerful God

Whether the empirical sciences have eliminated the need for God—or in fact point to him

How atheists usually deny moral laws (and thus a moral lawgiver) in theory but seldom in practice

Why the atheist symbol of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is a flawed analogy for theistic claims

History's best arguments for the existence of God—and how to answer objections to them

With the secularistic modern world turning increasingly hostile to religious believers, it has never been more important to be able to defend the basic reasonableness of theism.

Read Answering Atheism and become thoroughly equipped to rebut atheists' challenges—and to share with them the good news that God is real.

"I've read many works of popular apologetics; this is the best." --Stephen Bullivant, editor, The Oxford Handbook of Atheism

"Answering Atheism gets high grades on the three R's: It is readable, reasonable, and researched. Its defense of the cosmological argument has depth and detail, yet it is not so technical that you need to take a philosophy course to comprehend it." --Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy, Boston College

"If you read only one book that that shows the reasonableness and beauty of belief in God, it should be Trent Horn's Answering Atheism." --Kevin Vost, author, Memorize the Reasons!

[crzyprplmnky]

Actually the odds of us living in a universe that can support life is exactly one. You will not find life in a universe in which life is impossible.

[bulletmagnet]

Why isn't evolution mentioned in the bible? Why is the biblical creation story so inconsistent with observation? How did original sin happen if Adam and Eve were fictional? In the evolutionary timeline, where do you draw the line between soul-less animals and soul-filled humans? Do you think it's feasible that there are other universes that are not finely tuned? Is an infinitely large "multiverse" more or less reasonable than a infinity intelligent creator? Even if there is a finely tuned universe, how does it point to the God of the bible? Why not any of the other possible God-concepts?

[FiverBeyond]

""The odds of even living in a universe where evolution is even possible are astronomically low."

There's no evidence that this is the case, because we don't understand the processes that go behind choosing what values the forces of the universe have. It could be that the 'odds' of getting exactly the kind of universe we see are not only high, but that it's nigh inevitable.

[bonnieuk]

As others have stated in these comments, evolution doesn't pretend to answer how life got started, it describes how life evolves.

[rstevewarmorycom]

Which argument is dispelled by the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, and the Anthropic Principle, which states that a livable universe is explained by the requirement that humans must exist to observe it.

[standev]

Well, living creatures can only observe the universes in which life is possible. So there may be myriads of other lifeless universes with no one to observe.

[realkosherpork]

1. evolution doesn't account for the origins of life, that's abiogenesis 
2.there's only one universe, how do you know how likely it is to be this way?

[bradRambles]

Most of these videos and other pro-religious videos have the comment section disabled. I wonder why?

[aviatortrevor]

"The odds of even living in a universe where evolution is even possible are astronomically low."

Creationists don't understand how to calculate probabilities in regards to these claims. These "calculations" creationists make require a lot of absurd assumptions that have not been demonstrated. Their assumptions also include that idea that life can only exist in the way it has been observed on Earth.

The fine-tuning argument is a big fat argument from ignorance fallacy.

[TheHim]

But that is no proof, saying that our existence is 1 in any number is irrelevant because as there is infinite time and space that probability is eventually an inevitability, without god.
A phrase I have made for this is "impracticality does not necessarily mean impossibility" This means no matter how unlikely something is it is still possible if it is likely at all NO MATTER HOW SMALL :)

[PlasteredDragon]

We don't know if there are (or have been) other universes with other characteristics. So it's a little silly to look at the physical constants in our universe and marvel at how unlikely they are. How do you know there aren't 10 to the 80th different universes? If a universe didn't allow for the formation of life, then life wouldn't form and there wouldn't be anyone to marvel at how "unlikely" it all is.

Evolution doesn't disprove God, it merely demonstrates that such a being is unnecessary for life to diversify.

If you want to "answer atheism" you'll need to do better than statistical games.

[nietzschevsgod]

Isaiah 45 7 "I make peace, and create Evil" god created Evil, , , , and what was the tree of knowledge, knowledge of what "good and evil" 

[OWC]

First evolution does not explain life, that would be the study of abiogenesis. Secondly to make any predictions of probability when you only have a data set of one (the universe) is dishonest.

[bishopsheen]

Thank you so much, Trent. This helps a lot! God bless you.