III. Relationship between faith and works:

Many mistakenly think that we have to earn our way into heaven. Scripture clearly teaches us that if that was the basis for salvation that no one would be saved for there are "none who please God." Isaiah 64:6 says our righteous acts fall like filthy rags. Nevertheless, good works are vital elements of the Christian faith. Indeed, in James it is written, "Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead." The distinction is that works are an indication of true faith, not the basis of one's salvation. It is only natural, that in light of His incomprehensible love for us and His great sacrifice to us, we would desire to please God by living in obedience to His commands just as a child here on Earth desires to please his earthly father. In addition, the Bible teaches that Christians are in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity. It is the Spirit of Sonship, the Spirit which gives them the right to call themselves children of God. The ministry of the Jesus Christ, through the Spirit, is remaking them into new men and women. "Now where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit." (2 Corinthians 3:17-18) Not only does Christ free them from the guilt of their sins, but he then gives them power through the Holy Spirit to overcome many of them. Though Christians will still rebel and many times fall short, they know that God is at their side helping them in their weakness. One would expect that as Christians grow, that they would begin to exhibit more of the fruit of the Spirit. "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control." (Galatians 5:22)

Before we can establish the truth of Christianity, we must establish the existence of God

"because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."

Hebrews 11:6.

We must make three practical assumptions

1) The Law of Non-contradiction holds: (A cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship). The man who argues against the Law of Non-contradiction is claiming that it is false, whereby he uses it to justify his argument.

2) The Law of Causality holds: (Every effect must have a cause)

Though it has been attacked by Hume, it is something we must believe to function as human beings. It is a universal presupposition necessary for life and the ordering of knowledge. It can be denied by mouth but not

by life.

3) The basic reliability of sense perception:

Indeed our senses are fallible. We speak instead of a basic or rudimentary reliability of the senses. Senses are the bridge from subject to object. We assume that our observations reflect an objective reality outside of ourselves and are not merely subjective sensations.

All three assumptions may be attacked at the purely philosophical level, but at the practical level they must be assumed. The validity of reason, logic, and science as means of arriving at truth rest upon these three assumptions. The triad is integral to all knowledge.

I. The Cosmological Argument

A. Premise: At least one molecule exists

B. There are four possible explanations for this molecule

1. it is an illusion

a) The existence of an illusion requires someone or something to suffer the illusion. So though our original molecule may be an illusion, something else exists and we start back at A.

b) Descartes: One cannot doubt one's own existence.

2. it is self-created

This concept violates the law of non-contradiction. For something to create itself, it must exercise causal power over itself before it exists. It must be before it is. Note: It follows that the universe could not have been created by "chance." Chance is no thing. It is a word used to describe mathematical possibilities. It is not an entity. It has no being, no power, no force. It can effect nothing. Those who argue for "chance" creation are really appealing to self-creation, which we have just shown to be impossible, or to creation by nothing, which violates the law of causality.

3. it is self-existent

If something is self-existent, it implies that it is in its very nature to exist, in its very essence. It is impossible to think of a self- existing thing not existing. A self-existent being is necessarily eternal as it was never brought into existence but has existed always. I can imagine myself not existing, therefore I am not self-existent. Science tells us that our temporal universe had a beginning. As our universe is time-based every molecule in it cannot be eternal and therefore cannot be self-existent.

4. it is created by something else, which is ultimately self-existent

Bertrand Russell has argued for an infinite series of finite causes as an explanation for our universe, but this is nonsense. "An infinite series of contingent beings will be, to my way of thinking, as unable to cause itself as one contingent being." The logical conclusion is that all dependent beings were created by a self-existent being.

The statement "Everything can be explained by the Laws of Science" is false.

"In the whole history of the universe the Laws of Nature have never produced a single event. They are a pattern to which every event must conform...The Laws of Nature explain everything except the source of events. The laws, in one sense, cover the whole of reality--well, except that continuous cataract of real events which makes up the actual universe. They explain everything except what we should ordinarily call "everything." The only thing they omit is -- the whole universe." C.S. Lewis

II. The Argument from Design:

A. No one can argue with the assertion that we are "fearfully and wonderfully made". Our bodies are so complex and so suited to our environment that they make the existence of a divine engineer with creative power seem necessary. As William Paley argues, if we went walking on the beach and came across a watch, we would expect that an intelligent being had been there before us. If we saw an orderly, nicely maintained garden, we would naturally hypothesize the existence of a gardener.

B. It is argued that Darwinism has made the argument from design obsolete. It claims that all the design evident in life can be explained in terms of the force of natural selection acting upon random, mindless, chance mutations. Though the theory is accepted as fact in much of the scientific community, Phillip Johnson in his book Darwin on Trial effectively argues that an objective look at the evidence we have available in no way bears the Darwinistic theory out.

1) The Fossil Record

"I would give nothing for the theory of natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any stage of descent......If it be a true principle, banish the belief of the continued creation of new organic beings, or of any great and sudden modification in their structure." Charles Darwin

a) Two trends emerge from an objective look at the fossil evidence.

1) Stasis: Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.

2) Sudden appearance: In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."

Darwin's theory implies that "The number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great." Charles Darwin

"I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how poor a record of the mutations of life, the best preserved geological section presented, had not the difficulty of our not discovering innumerable transitional links between the species which appeared at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on my theory..... (The state of the fossil evidence is) the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory....(This accounts for the fact) that all the most eminent paleontologists....and all our greatest geologists...have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of the species..... Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms." Charles Darwin

b) Darwin argued that since fossils are preserved only in special circumstances, that they therefore reflect not a continuous record but rather snapshots of relatively brief periods of time. Today, the Bighorn Basin in Wyoming does contain a continuous local record of fossil deposits for about 5 million years, during an early period in the age of mammals. The findings are remarkable. Species that were once thought to have turned into others overlap in time with their alleged descendants, and "the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." In addition, species remain fundamentally unchanged for an average of one million years before disappearing from the record.

c) Darwinism cannot account for the "Cambrian explosion." Nearly all the animal phyla appear in the rocks of this period without a trace of evolutionary ancestors. "It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history," says Richard Dawkins, the leading proponent of Darwinism in our time.

d) Paleontologist Otto Schindewolf was ridiculed for proposing the extreme saltationist view that "the first bird must have hatched from a reptile's egg." Nevertheless, critics conceded that these bizarre conclusions were "based upon a thorough knowledge of the fossil evidence."

e) For more than 100 years, scientists have scrutinized the fossil record, yet still there is an incredible paucity of possible intermediate species. Only the order Therapsida, thought to be involved in a transition from reptiles to mammals, and Archaeopteryx, a possible intermediate from reptile to bird can legitimately be regarded as possible intermediates, and their claims are dubious.

"If we are testing Darwinism rather than merely looking for an example or two, then a single good candidate for ancestor status is not enough to save a theory that posits a worldwide history of continual evolutionary transformation." Phillip Johnson

"We can tell tales of improvement of some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating excellence." Stephen Jay Gould

"We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change], all the while really knowing that it does not." Niles Eldredge (his explanation is that "studies documenting conservative persistence rather than gradual evolutionary change were considered failures." Only the findings which seemed to document evolution had a chance of being published.)

2) The Problem of the Origin of Life Remains a Huge Problem for Naturalists

a) All Darwinist claims to have an explanation for the origin of life refer to the experiment first performed by Stanley Miller in the early 1950's. He was able to obtain small amounts of two amino acids by sending a spark through the mixture of gases thought to simulate the atmosphere of the early earth.

b) Scientists employing the full power of their intelligence cannot manufacture living organisms from amino acids, sugars, and the like. Why are we to think that chance could?

c) The possibility that such a complex entity as an RNA molecule, needed to start Darwinist evolution on its way, could assemble itself by chance is still fantastically unlikely, even if billions of years had been available. It has been estimated by mathematicians that the time scale needed for the accumulation of random mutations to bring about the needed complexity we observe is on the order of 10¹⁰⁰ years. Physicists place the time scale of the universe at around 10¹⁰ years. The probabilistic argument has never been satisfactorily answered by the evolutionist who usually says something to the effect that it had to have happened because we are here to talk about it.

d) Some of the fantastic theories proposed by respected scientists are revealing. Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, proposed a theory of "directed pan-spermia" whereby primitive life forms were sent to earth by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization. His theory explained the evidence well, namely the sudden appearance of cellular microorganisms without evidence that any simpler forms preceded them and that early forms were distantly related but highly distinct with no evidence of ancestors. But his theory is the natural equivalent of appealing to a supernatural creator.

3) Naturalistic evolutionists' defenses of their own theory is insubstantial

Stephen Jay Gould is one of the leading voices of naturalistic thought in our time. His three "proofs" of evolution are as follows.

a) The observation of microevolution. (This is conceded by the theist who maintains only that God created basic kinds or types which are free to diversify). The mere observation of small-scale evolution does not imply the truth of macroevolution.

b) The imperfection of nature reveals evolution. Many arguments of the "God wouldn't have done it this way" theme are made. A proper Creator should have designed each kind of organism in such a way as to achieve maximum efficiency.

"The task of science is not to speculate about why God might have done things this way, but to see if a material cause can be established by empirical investigation." Phillip Johnson

c) Gould cites two possible intermediates, which as we have already established is a pretty lame defense for a theory which claims to have everything explained.

C. An aside concerning the limitations of science.

It is the nature of science to attempt to explain all things in terms of natural causes. In this sense, the theory of Darwinian natural selection is the best natural explanation for the design we observe around us. Many scientists make the jump in saying that the best natural explanation is automatically the best explanation. The fossil record seems to suggest many acts of supernatural design and creation at different points in history. Such a hypothesis rests outside the realm of science; it is not a scientific theory, but science has no basis for saying that it is false a

priori. The conviction that many scientists hold that supernatural events do not happen is a philosophical presupposition which cannot be proven or disproven by science. The realm of the miracle is by definition outside of the realm of science which is based upon the observation of regularity. To discover a regularity is by definition not to discover its interruptions. Science should be free to theorize concerning all things, and so far as the theories conform to reality, they should be accepted. Thus, microevolution can be accepted as fact because it has been observed. Where there is not yet a satisfactory naturalistic explanation, it should not necessarily be assumed that one exists. Therefore, science has no basis for teaching naturalistic macroevolution as fact. The theory is never established in texts; it is just assumed, and the most effective form of brainwashing is to act as if it is so established as truth that no one would even consider questioning it.

D. Even if Darwinian evolution were to satisfactorily explain the remarkable design in living systems, the universe itself displays remarkable design. The very existence of natural laws is remarkable. Why should there be regularities in a random system? In addition, many of the parameters which define our universe seem to have been fine-tuned so as to preserve it's existence. For instance, if the mass of a neutron were one tenth of one percent less than it's actual value, there would be an abundance of neutrons in our universe, and matter would collapse. If on the other hand, the mass of a neutron were one tenth of one percent greater, there would be fewer neutrons and no elements. There are no fewer than 29 parameters, such as strengths of strong, weak, gravitational, and electronegative forces, which if varied slightly would make the existence of the universe impossible. There are 52 such parameters which must be fine-tuned for our solar system to exist, and another 50 fine-tuned parameters in which slight variations in only one would make life on Earth impossible. Our creation does seem to bear the fingerprint of God in every sense. (Note: This information was taken from a talk given by Christian astrophysicist Hugh Ross. For documentation, refer to his four books. The Creator in the Cosmos is his most recent).

It is admitted that every one of the points I have made is up for argumentation. Skepticism and cynicism always win on the theoretical level. You can always find reason to doubt any argument. Philosophers have long debated the relative merits of the Cosmological argument, and few of us can even imagine what new scientific discoveries will be made in the future and whether they will augment or injure the Argument from Design. I am neither a philosopher nor a scientist, and I do not claim to have made an irrefutable, formal proof of God's existence. I do believe it is a practical proof, however, in that God existing is the only reasonable explanation for the reality we experience daily.

III. The Absurdity of Life Apart From God

A. Assume there is no God, or no supernatural aspect to our existence

It follows that our logical behavior, our thoughts, and our ethical behavior, our ideals as well as our acts are governed by biochemical laws.

Assuming naturalism to be true:

1) Relevant chemicals on Earth and the sun's light and heat juxtaposed to give organization to matter

2) Blind natural selection acting on minute differences between organisms blundered into the mirage we call consciousness

3) Certain movements in our cortexes beneath our skulls, movements still governed by physical laws, gave rise to what we call "thoughts."

4) These "thoughts" are the last link in a causal chain in which all other previous links are irrational.

5) We "think" because the matter in our brains behaves in a certain way, and the whole history of the universe up to that point forces it to behave in that way.

6) As our "thoughts" arise from irrational causes, we can have no confidence that they in any way describe the nature of things external to ourselves. They are mere subjective sensations. Saying "I think" is equivalent to saying "I itch."

7) We then have no basis for saying our thoughts or beliefs offer any real insight concerning an objective "truth" as they are irrational sensations we have no control over.

8) Naturalism is a system of thought. One is a naturalist because the chemicals in one's brain align themselves in such a way that one thinks in that way.

9) Because naturalism is a system of thought, the naturalist cannot claim that naturalism is true, (i.e. it describes the nature of things) because the philosophy of naturalism itself devastates all rational thought.

10) Naturalism does not have to be refuted. It refutes itself.

11) The validity of rational thought, in an utterly non-natural, transcendental sense is the necessary presupposition for all other theorizing.

B. The theist does not run into such problems

1) Reason, the reason of God, is older than nature itself

2) The human mind, in the act of knowing, is illuminated by the Divine Reason. Rational thought is a real thing because it flows from God the source.

3) Ones thoughts need not necessarily be merely a link in a causal chain but may approach in varying degrees truth itself in describing external reality.

C. The reality of morality

1) We all make moral judgments. We say things like "I ought" or I "should have" done this. We believe that things like murder, rape, and stealing are absolutely wrong.

2) There is a remarkable uniformity of moral belief through all cultures. Nowhere is cowardice exalted over bravery, selfishness over selflessness. Nowhere is integrity criticized or hypocrisy exalted. It seems as if we are created with internal moral compasses which allows us to make judgments. Things just "seem" right to us.

3) We act as if there is an absolute good and evil, which exist outside of our subjective opinion. If we say we think saving and preserving human life is a good thing we are not merely saying what we feel but we are making a judgment. If someone sincerely believed that killing human life was a good thing would his view be just as legitimate?

4) But if naturalism is true, then all moral judgments are subjective feelings. There is no standard by which to measure two competing views of what is good and what is evil. There is no standard by which one can claim that Hitler's atrocities were evil.

5) Atheism provides every reason to be immoral and is bereft of any objective point of reference with which to condemn any choice.

6) I am not saying that atheists cannot make moral judgments or think something is right. Many atheists I know live upright moral lives. What I am saying is that the atheist, in excluding all but the natural world from the things of reality, has no basis for his morality. "A Stalinistic-type choice is one that the philanthropic atheist is hard pressed to rail against once he or she has, by the virtue of atheism, automatically forfeited the right to a moral law." Ravi Zacharias

7) "In other words, belief in a God and in another world is so interwoven with my moral sentiment that as there is little danger of my losing the latter, there is equally little cause for fear that the former could ever be taken from me." Immanuel Kant in Critique of Pure Reason.

8) Interestingly enough, as I am sure we will all admit, we not only have a knowledge of what is right, but we know in our hearts that often we do not do what is right even though we know it. "Since (people) show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them." Romans 2:15

D. There are other aspects of our existence, part of what I like to think of as a "spiritual reality" which naturalism cannot account for.

1) From a purely naturalistic point of view, the concept of love is no more than a biological chemical reaction, yet which of us can deny the reality of love in our lives, that love is a real thing in and of itself? Try to convince yourself that the purest act of sacrificial, unconditional love you have ever witnessed is in some way an outgrowth of natural selection. Francis Schaeffer relates a story of a couple who fall in love on the banks of the Seine and yet cry because they do not believe love exists. "Though their system of thought may say love does not exist their own experience shows that it does. They have not touched the personal God who exists, but, for a fleeting moment, they have touched the existence of true personality in their love. This is indeed an objective reality, because God has made their personalities in this way."

2) Free will must necessarily be forfeited in the naturalistic world view. Our thoughts and desires are the result of a mindless flow of chemicals in our brains, and these irrational events necessarily cause us to act in a certain way.

Supernaturalism allows us to separate "myself" from "my body." Through the supernatural application of rational thought, we become volitional beings, able to choose freely between competing natural impulses.

3) With free will, we must forfeit the concept of moral responsibility. As people have no control in any real sense over their actions, there is really no justification for seeking to punish those who do "wrong."

4) There is no such thing as objective beauty in a world without God. Things appear beautiful or lovely to us because they produce subjective sensations, not because they are beautiful or lovely in and of themselves.

5) For the naturalist, a human life has no inherent dignity or value over and above what we choose to give it.

The natural extension of the naturalistic world view would treat another as nothing more than a bunch of chemicals. There would be nothing wrong with violating the civil rights of "black" bunches of chemicals. Surely man has an inherent dignity and worth. The theistic world view states that yes he does and that this is because he is made in the image of God.

6) A life without God is a life of ultimate futility, devoid of lasting meaning. Yet, we are purposeful beings and our very souls long for and thirst for eternity. Pascal describes such a longing as a "God-shaped vacuum" in the heart of every man. We hunger and our need is met by food. We thirst and we find relief with drink. Assuming he exists, might God not have created in us a desire for meaning because he can fill it? In Christianity, God bestows eternal significance upon every moral choice, however small, made in the recesses of our hearts. The true purpose of life is the maturing of the soul.

The atheist must resign himself to the world view expressed by biologist Richard Dawkins in his book River out of Eden "There is no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference....DNA neither knows nor cares and we dance to its music." Admittedly, to hold such a world view is not a flat self-contradiction. You can believe that all ideas of good and evil are hallucinations--mere shadows cast on the world by the impulses which we have been conditioned to feel. The challenge is to live a life consistent with these beliefs. Nietzsche tried to do this. He railed against atheist "hypocrites" who couldn't overcome the claim morality seemed to have on their lives as much as they tried to free themselves from it. Nietzsche went insane, his very life a microcosm of the intolerable nature of life without God.

The atheist can attempt to pull himself up by his own metaphysical bootstraps, to build for himself a coherent structure within which to build his life, but it will be a chimera. He has no authority or power to assign meaning or significance to the things he does.

"Time and time again it has been proven that it is not possible to establish a reasonable and coherent ethical theory without first establishing the telos, i.e. the purpose and destiny of human life. If life itself is purposeless, ethics falls into disarray.... And in our search for morality and happiness outside of God we have effectively lost all three." Ravi Zacharias

As outlined above, I believe that the theistic view is the only one which coherently describes the reality we experience.

Christian Growth: Growing in love for and obedience to God through a relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ. As with any relationship, we must invest in it and spend time developing it.

Motivation: God's love for us in spite of our rebellious nature.

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23

"For the wages of sin is death." Romans 6:23

"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8

"For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." Colossians 1:13-14

Actions to bring about:

Bible study:

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

"As students at Princeton, God has blessed us all with great minds. What better way to honor him with our gifts than in a diligent study of his word? Really study it as you would for a class." Jeff Woolbert

Prayer:

"Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your request to God. And the peace of God which transcends all understanding will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus." Philippians 4:6-7.

Fellowship:

"And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another." Hebrews 10:24-25

Characteristics:

An increasing attitude of humility as one becomes more aware of his own sin.

A genuine attitude of love for others as we consider God's love for us characterized by a giving of oneself for another. "We love because He first loved us." 1 John 4:19.

A desire to worship God in the things we do.

"Worship is the submission of all my nature to God. It is the quickening of conscience by His holiness, nourishment of mind by His truth, purifying of imagination by His beauty, opening of the heart to His love and submission of will to His purpose. All this gathered up in adoration is the greatest expression of which we are capable." William Temple

A desire to see others accept Christ.

"Jesus said, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me."

John 14:6

"Go into the world and preach the good news to all creation." Mark 16:15

A desire to obey God in all things:

As Christians, we are called to repent of all known sin

"Let us throw off the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us."

Hebrews 12:1

Though the kingdoms of the Earth crumble to dust in the presence of God's majesty, he chooses to give significance to even the smallest moral act. We were created in such a way that we achieve lasting happiness when we draw close to God, and every time we disobey Him, it is an act of rebellion against Him. We must read the Bible to find out what His commands are, and as we discover the truths, we must apply them. Bible study without application is futility.

When we do fall short, however, we can be sure that our sins have been removed from us "as far as the east is from the west."

We have God's promise that "If we confess our sins he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and will purify us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9

Remember, as a Christian you have assurance that God is working in you for your progress and joy in the faith and transforming you through the Holy Spirit. We must live by faith in this great truth.

"You, however, are not controlled by the sinful nature but by the Spirit." Romans 8:9

"(I am) confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus." Philippians 1:6

"Continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling because it is God who works in you." Philippians 2:12

"And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit." 2 Corinthians 3:18

"Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession--to the praise of his glory." Ephesians 1:13-14

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control." Galatians 5:22

A Few Opportunities here at Princeton for Christian growth:

Campus Crusade Bible Study. Contact Matt Bennett 497-0445 or Michelle Crotwell 716-8816

Church: Westerly Road 8:45, 10:00, 11:15. Shuttles leave from Ustore 15 minutes before service

Princeton Presbyterian Church 11:00. If you want a ride to the church service call Duncan 8-9099

Fellowship Meetings:

Campus Crusade for Christ: Friday nights at 8:00 in Whig Hall.

Princeton Evangelical Fellowship: Friday nights at 7:30 in Murray Dodge.

Manna Christian Fellowship: call Mike Park '98 for more information.

Athletes in Action: Sunday nights at 8:00 in Murray Dodge.

Works Referenced:

Barker, Kenneth ed., The NIV Study Bible 10th Anniversary Edition, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1995.

Johnson, Phillip, Darwin on Trial, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 1993.

Lewis, C.S. The Grand Miracle, Ballantine Books, New York, 1970.

Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity, Collier Books, New York, 1952.

Lewis, C.S. Miracles, Touchstone Books, New York, 1947.

McDowell, Josh, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Here's Life Publishers, San Bernardino, CA, 1979.

Packer, J.I., Knowing God, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 1973.

Ross, Hugh, The Fingerprint of God, Promise Publishing Co., Orange, CA, 1991.

Simmons, R.E, Remembering the Forgotten God, Atticus Press & Company Inc., 1992.

Sproul, R.C., John Gerstner and Arthur Lindsley, Classical Apologetics, Academie Books, Grand Rapids MI, 1984.

Sproul, R.C. Reason to Believe, Lamplighter Books, Grand Rapids MI, 1981.

Wilkins, Michael J. and J.P. Moreland Jesus Under Fire, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids MI, 1995.

Wilson, Ian. Jesus: The Evidence, Harper San Francisco, 1996.

Zacharias, Ravi, Can Man Live Without God?, Word Publishing, Dallas, 1994

Also look for the new book entitled Finding God at Harvard edited by Kelly K. Monroe. It is a compilation of 42 testimonies from intellectuals associated with Harvard.