Stealing from God is Frank Turek’s claim that Atheism cannot live out their worldview without having to borrow from the Christian worldview. They basically need God to have an argument against his existence. In order to do that, they have to steal from God. What does that actually mean? Well, Turek points out six areas where Atheists are not consistent in their worldview. Causality; Reason, Information and intentionality, Morality, Evil, and Science.
Causality is simply the claim that everything that begins to exist has a cause. I think everyone can agree with that. Just look at anything; a house, a tree, even a person, and it is clear that it had a beginning, and something or someone caused that beginning to happen. Atheists will agree with that, but when it comes to the beginning of the universe, that is where they draw the line.
Atheists will say in order to believe in something, they need to experience it. So in a simple sense, they need to see it in order to believe it. That is fine, but where their argument becomes inconsistent is when they present ideas that they themselves are unable to to experience or see for themselves such as evolution or the multi-verse. This is where atheists do not apply their own standards to their own arguments.
Atheists will use reason and logic as their guide to understanding the world around them. In other words, what makes the most sense? Of course, you don’t have to be an atheist to use reason and logic. We all use it every day to a certain degree. But where does reason and logic come from? Because if you deny the existence of God who created reason and logic, then reason and logic are just chemical reactions from our brain. There is no true free will. We are just reacting to the physical world around us. There is no intellect.
Atheists will also argue for specific information and intentionality if there is any chance of them believing in a God. Turek shares how God has already done that with DNA. The cell structures within our DNA contain such an incredible amount of information that is solely unique for each and every individual. This screams of design and purpose. But for many Atheists, this is just the result of chance and time.
Then there is the infamous argument from morality. This has been widely debated and talked about all over the internet. In its simplest terms, everyone knows what is right or wrong. You do not need a God to explain that. But the real challenge for atheists is “Why is anything right or wrong to begin with?” Christians need God to know why anything is right or wrong because God is their ultimate objective standard of morality. Atheists claim they don’t need a God, but then what objective standard are they using to explain why anything is right or wrong? If you ask an atheist why murder is wrong, they are forced to steal that objective standard from God to create their own version. They just rebrand and package it without giving God the credit. But if they choose to be honest and not steal from God, then their argument falls apart because, without an objective standard, any reason why murder is wrong is just relative. If we follow an atheist’s reasoning to its logical conclusion, why anything is wrong is just a matter of preference or opinion.
This leads to the moral problem of evil. What has been the atheist's go-to argument against the existence of God, Turek uses a UNO reverse card and shares how it actually points to God’s existence. Evil isn't a real thing. It's just the absence of something good. So basically, if there's evil, it means there must be something good too. It's like how you see a shadow on the ground - there's only a shadow because of the sunlight. You wouldn't say the sun doesn't exist just because there's a shadow, right? Well, the fact that there's a shadow proves that the sun is there.
The same goes for God and evil. Since evil exists and we all agree it's bad, it doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It just shows that people have turned away from Him. The problem of evil falls more on atheists as a challenge to explain rather than on believers.
This finally brings us to our last area of inconsistency from atheists; Science. One of the coolest things about science is that it doesn't really have an opinion. It just collects a bunch of information, which is just information, and then we have to figure out what it all means. And the crazy thing is that different people can see the same information and come up with totally different interpretations.
Basically, when it comes to the arguments about theism and science, it's really about how people interpret the data rather than the data itself. A bunch of atheist scientists have this mindset that only materialistic things exist, so they automatically rule out the possibility of theism even before looking at the data. And honestly, that's not really good science, if you ask me.
So if God really did create everything, then studying everything through science will lead us to Him. You can see His influence in everything He made. Atheists, on the other hand, ignore this evidence because they've already made up their minds that God doesn't exist. This means their scientific findings are influenced by their atheistic beliefs and affect how they interpret and conclude the data that actually supports the existence of God.
But what about Christianity? What inconsistencies do they have? Frank Uses four questions To determine whether Christianity is true:
1. Does truth exist?
2. Does God exist?
3. Are miracles possible?
4. Is the New Testament historically reliable?
If all four answers are yes, then we've got a pretty good reason to think the whole Bible is true. But if any of the answers is no, then it kind of makes us doubt if the whole Bible is really trustworthy. For me, the question of miracles is a challenging one because everyone has their own subjective opinion of what a miracle is. We have no way of measuring or determining what constitutes a miracle. I could be walking in a park and find a $100 bill on the ground and say that is a miracle. But someone else would say, you got lucky, or I was at the right place at the right time. What are the requirements needed for something to be a miracle? So I can see how atheists would challenge Christianity on that one. But since the question is about whether they are possible rather than “Can we see miracles?”, makes it easier to answer.
I think it’s clear from reading Stealing from God that atheists don't really have the strong scientific foundation they say they do. It's not like they have proper arguments against God, they just seem to have grievances with Him. They're not happy with how things have turned out, so they're trying to show that God doesn't exist.
In the end, God won't force Himself on anyone. He's all about being holy and fair, and he wants everyone to have the freedom to choose. Hell isn't some punishment that God picks, but it's for those who want nothing to do with Him forever.
What I love about Turek is that he respects the Atheist and their logic. I don’t believe an atheist would feel insulted or hurt by what he is trying to say. It’s clear he is not saying atheists are thieves. He is just making a strong case that the evidence atheists are using to disprove God, actually points to a timeless, spaceless, immaterial designer. He is not trying to convince anyone there is a God. Instead, he is just sharing where the evidence leads. I believe the atheist that has an open heart and an open mind will actually appreciate a book like this. Everyone loves to look at intelligent design. So for the atheist that reads this book, just replace “God” with “Designer” and you may appreciate what you discover.