Recently I started my YouTube channel with a reaction style video. It's certainly not my forte to do an improv-style response to theological arguments, but it was enjoyable to see what I could think of off-the-cuff. Now that I've finished first reactions I can take more time to address the assertions of Frank Turek in detail. In his video, which I assume is a paraphrase of his book, he asserts that Christianity is true if the answer to the following 4 Questions is "Yes".
Question #1 : Does Truth Exist?
I prefer to phrase this question as something like "Does objectivity exist?" or "Is there anything in this universe that is not subjective?". Dr. Turek asserts that the answer to this question is "yes" and I would agree with him. I think that Turek starts with this question because it's something that only a sophist would reasonably deny, and if you can get an audience to agree with you somewhere, then they'll be less opposed to agreeing with you later on. It's a strategy to make an audience more receptive to ideas, and since Dr. Turek has a doctorate in ministry I'm sure he is aware of the power of effective presentation.
Side note: There are some people that use the expression "truth doesn't exist" not to deny that there is an objective reality anywhere, but rather to say that it's impossible to obtain perfect knowledge about said reality. However, I think Turek is using "truth" here to mean there being an objective reality in the first place
Question #2: Does God Exist?
This question and the resulting segment from Dr. Turek are highly misleading. Turek gives misinformation about science, and then proceeds to answer two different questions than the one originally posed. The two questions that Dr. Turek actually answers here are 1) "Did the universe have a beginning from nothing?" and then also 2) "Could such a universe come about only through the will of a theistic God?".
First, Dr. Turek asserts that science has also determined that the universe began from nothing. This is mostly incorrect. What he is likely referencing here is big bang cosmology, which states that all matter and space that we can currently see came from a single point. But a single point is not "from nothing" and it's an important distinction to make here. Big Bang Cosmology is silent on what happened before or during that single point, and in fact it is likely that single point doesn't actually exist given science's track record with mathematical singularities in the past. Most singularities disappeared from mathematical models when we developed the tools to look closer. For example, the mathematical model of the shape of a water droplet falling from a faucet posits that the teardrop shape finally separates when the point of the drop becomes a singularity. But we know now that molecules exist and the tip of the droplet wasn't actually infinitely small in size as the model predicts. This is because, ultimately, mathematical models are only approximations of reality and not reality itself. Therefore, I do not agree with Turek that science "knows" the universe began from nothing. But, I'll give him credit that the current mathematical formulas imply it came from a point, which is close to nothing.
The other question that Turek answers is subtle, but he implies it right before he starts question 3 when he says that we can conclude that therefore a "theistic god" exists. Now, nowhere before did he make a case that there needed to be a theistic god in order to create a universe from nothing. All he said is that if a universe was created from nothing, then the force that created it must have not been part of the universe (i.e. space, time, matter as we know them). But that is not enough to conclude that a theistic God is required to start the universe. To prove this, I'll give a couple other examples of creative forces outide our universe that aren't a theistic God. 1) a creating force that destroys itself in the process of creating the universe from nothing, 2) a creating force that moves onto other things after creating the universe from nothing, 3) a collection of creating forces, non-singular.
Question #3 : Do Miracles Exist
Since I disagree that a single theist God is the obvious solution to the universe existing, I could stop engaging with the questions here. But since I don't completely rule it out as a possibility, let's assume it's true to continue engaging with the remaining questions.
At this step I think Dr. Turek makes the largest mistake in saying that those that admit the universe was created must admit the possibility of miracles. Miracles are by definition a defiance of the natural laws of the observable universe. Miracles are events that cannot be explained by any interaction between matter, time, space, and the known forces. As discussed in my response to Question #2, the fact that science has a mathematical model that predicts the universe began at a single point means that such a beginning is not outside the realm of the natural laws. So someone who trusts in the big bang cosmological model has no obligation to allow for a defiance of the laws in their world view.
Question #4 : Is the account of the resurrection reliable?
Now, just for the sake of argument, I'll assume the answer to the previous three questions is "yes". With that, does the evidence of the resurrection give us enough reason to conclude the Christian God is the God described in past questions?
For the evidence, Turek suggests a number of points in quick succession:
There are multiple Jewish sources in and outside the Bible pointing to Jesus existing
There are multiple accounts of an empty tomb
The idea of a resurrection was not in existing Jewish theology and would not be invented
Christians existed before the gospel was written down
At this point all I have to say is that if this is the standard of evidence needed to confirm a miracle, then Dr. Turek is allowing for basically every religion to be true. The existence of Muhammad, the Buddha, Joseph Smith, etc are all well attested. Almost all faith leaders who are claimed to have performed miracles perform acts that were not part of previous traditions. Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism had many followers before anything was written down. And we know that not all religions can be true since they have contradictory claims to the nature of the universe.
Also, the empty tomb in the story doesn't necessarily mean a miracle occurred. The body theft hypothesis is a more likely explanation for the rumors that Jesus rose from the dead in my opinion. In a culture where physical contact with a faith healer was highly valued for healing properties, I don't doubt that many wanted to steal the body of Jesus, even amongst his followers. I think the ascension story only located in one gospel is a nice convenient excuse for why a freshly risen God decided to reveal himself to so few people, and I think the mention of guards at the tomb in Matthew are an ad hoc excuse for why a body theft was impossible since Matthew is the only gospel that tries to argue against the body theft hypothesis by asserting that the Jewish priests invented it in a private conversation between the guards and the priests that Matthew somehow has access to.
Finally, I think that proof of the resurrection is NOT the bare minimum needed to conclude Christianity was true. Especially since there are so many other claims that go against observed evidence such as the global flood, the firmament, the exodus, etc.
In Summary
If we are to treat this series of questions in order, then my opinion on the answer to the questions starts to differ at Question 2, as I think there is plenty of room in science for a universe not created from nothing, and even if it was created from nothing, I think there are many alternative explanations for creative forces besides a singular-theistic God. I outright disagree with Question 3, as I don't think miracles occur, nor do I think that belief in the big bang model necessitates a belief in miracles. Finally, I strongly disagree with the standard of evidence laid out by Dr. Turek in Question 4 for establishing a miracle as having happened, since this would allow for all the other world religions to be true. I also don't think the resurrection would be enough to prove the rest of Christianity true.