Free Book Online
The Case for God


The Case for God

4.2 (1737)

Log in to rate this item

    Available in PDF Format | The Case for God.pdf | English
    Peter S. Williams(Author)
Churchgoing may be falling in the Western world but intellectually at least, Christianity is experiencing something of a re-birth. In this text the author lays out, in layman's terms, the primary arguments for the existence and nature of God. He considers the problem of evil, and then sets out the various positive arguments, in favour of God's existence: the Moral argument; the Cosmological argument; the argument from design; and then more personal arguments such as Common Consent, Authority and Religious Experience. He concludes by providing a summaryof the kind of God to whom these arguments point.
3.4 (12507)
  • Pdf

*An electronic version of a printed book that can be read on a computer or handheld device designed specifically for this purpose.

Formats for this Ebook

Required Software Any PDF Reader, Apple Preview
Supported Devices Windows PC/PocketPC, Mac OS, Linux OS, Apple iPhone/iPod Touch.
# of Devices Unlimited
Flowing Text / Pages Pages
Printable? Yes

Book details

  • PDF | 432 pages
  • Peter S. Williams(Author)
  • Monarch Books (Jun. 1999)
  • English
  • 2
  • Religion & Spirituality
Read online or download a free book: The Case for God

Review Text

  • By L. Coffre on 6 December 2009

    What a disappointment. I was looking for a cogent argument that could present in an intelligent way some kind of evidence for the existence of God. The reviews on this site were encouraging so I bought the book. Alas, Williams does not so much present a case for God than tries to justify his own belief in a very specific deity, the Christian kind.Needless to say, I was not convinced and I will take two specific examples, to be found in the first fifty pages, to show why I think Williams's argument is biased.First of all Williams takes a plunge in the heart of a very potent issue, that of Evil. The problem of Evil is well known and highlights the contradiction between the existence of Evil on the one hand and the existence of an omni benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God. Williams quotes LePoidevin on page 43: "either there is no such deity, or, if there is, he is not all-knowing, all-powerful and perfectly good, though he may be one or two of these". Note how LePoidevin concedes that God may exist but cannot exhibit all three characters together. So what does Williams do over the next 20 pages? He subtly turns the "problem" of Evil into an "argument" from Evil and postulate that this "argument" was designed to disprove the existence of God! This was never the case! The problem of Evil simply points towards inconsistencies in certain theistic beliefs. Williams somehow acknowledges this on page 44 but his concession is largely undermined by a ridiculous piece of logic, on the previous page, that I must reproduce here to show the reader what he can expect:I quote from page 43:"Premise 1) If God existed there would be no Wrong (because God would be aware of Wrong, he would desire to prevent Wrong, and he would be able to prevent Wrong).Premise 2) Wrong exists.Conclusion. Therefore, God does not exist"End quote.No, no, no, Mr Williams! The only conclusion you can reach from the above if that the God you refer to (the one with 3 "omni" traits) cannot exhibit, together, the three traits described in premise 1. That is all.But the ludicrous beauty of it, is that Williams persists and says, on page 47, "the argument from Wrong can't pretend to rule out the existence of a god". Indeed it can't. And it doesn't, as all people with half a brain, including atheists, readily agree. Williams has demonstrated through an incredibly messy thought process what everybody knows already in an attempt to dismiss entirely the problem of Evil and be rid of an inconvenient piece of logic. And I am not closer to find out if God really exists.The second point I would like to raise is closely related to the above where Williams argues that if there is Evil to be understood by all humanity, there must be what he calls an "objective" Wrong, i.e. some kind of standard must have been set for us all puny humans to understand the difference between what is good and bad. Indeed, for the problem of Evil to really pose problem there must be some kind of "objective" way to know what is good or bad. So Williams, unashamedly, asks the million dollar question on page 46: "where, apart from God, can we find an objective standard of right and wrong?". This clearly illustrates Williams's inability to think beyond his own prejudice. The question he asks shows nothing more than the fact that he cannot answer the question. Nothing more, nothing less. The admission of ignorance is not proof of God in my books. Furthermore, there are scores of ethnologists, anthropologists and other scientists of evolution that have come up with theories that can very well explain the notion of common human objective good. We may or may not agree with those scientists (although their research on the matter is powerful indeed) but the point is that one does NOT need to resort to God when faced with a seemingly unanswerable question. Williams cannot achieve to show that faith in God is anything more than a matter of choice: there is no case for God here.I hope the above two points will provide some context and information on how Williams conducts his argument. I have found him to be ignorant or mistaken at best, or downright dishonest at worst in his way to twist logic to suit his own ends.

  • Name:
    The message text:

    Other Ebook