What is your best apologetics rationale for me, an ex-believer?

[razeontherock]

Child-like faith tends to lead to very powerful manifestations.

Love ya, Brother! Happy New Year to you and yours ...

Ray

 

[andreha]

Love ya, Brother! Happy New Year to you and yours ...

Ray

Thanks bro, same to you and your loved ones.

Sometimes, I wish there was a way to show other people what the Almighty has shown me. Seeing the power of God for yourself is such a wonderful blessing. Thinking back to all the times when God's Holy Spirit took literal control of me to save me from death and destruction is enough to fill one with a sense of awe. Watching how the Spirit commands a thundercloud to move in a specific direction, and to see it happen within seconds goes beyond words.

 

[razeontherock]

Yeah, sorta puts doubting questions in proper perspective, doesn't it?

 

[Nanopants]

In the spirit of full disclosure, I am an ex-evangelical Christian who no longer believes. I would describe myself now as agnostic.

I'm interested in what arguments you might use in discussion with me - a believer for many years who has heard (and used) many of the arguments I think you will use, before rejecting them later on. I finally rejected them as I found they did not hold up to rational scrutiny (not that the process was anywhere near as clinical and easy as that sounds!).

So which argument/position do you find the most rationally compelling for your belief? Or do you rely upon factors other than rationality to support your belief?

Cogito.

I was raised Christian and fell away into agnosticism for a few years myself. Reasonable arguments couldn't have reached me, but deep down I knew that there very well could be a God, even though I wasn't sure. Finally, I reasoned that even though we may not be able to prove God's existence, if God exists, then God can prove His own existence. So I prayed, sincerely, and God answered.

 

[andreha]

Yeah, sorta puts doubting questions in proper perspective, doesn't it?

That it sure does bro.

 

[GrayAngel]

In the spirit of full disclosure, I am an ex-evangelical Christian who no longer believes. I would describe myself now as agnostic.

I'm interested in what arguments you might use in discussion with me - a believer for many years who has heard (and used) many of the arguments I think you will use, before rejecting them later on. I finally rejected them as I found they did not hold up to rational scrutiny (not that the process was anywhere near as clinical and easy as that sounds!).

So which argument/position do you find the most rationally compelling for your belief? Or do you rely upon factors other than rationality to support your belief?

Cogito.

I would submit to you that your idea of Christianity is based on the watered-down version that arose out of 2000 years of theological decay.

First, I would try to figure out what it is that failed to meet up to your rational standards. Is it, possibly, the literal interpretations of the Old Testament which many cling to? If so, let me tell you that all Christians do not believe that the world was literally created in six days. Taking the Creation story specifically, we already know that the serpent was not a literal snake. It's well understood that the serpent was the devil, and if the snake is understood not to be literal, why should we assume that the rest is?

If it's the literal reading of the Old Testament that's holding you back, let it go. It's not all that important. I personally do not care if the world was created in six days or a hundred-billion days, and I doubt that the creation story was intended to be a scientific account of how the world came to be.

Second, I would try to reason with you based on the kind of logical reasoning that I have gradually built over the years that has strengthened my faith.

Imagine this scenario: A man is falling into a pit that is infinitely deep and the walls extend infinitely above him. Will he ever hit the bottom? Of course not. You can't ever reach the end of infinity.

Time does not work with it flowing in both directions into infinity. If there was an infinite past, then our present is like the man sitting at the bottom of the pit, after having falling for an infinite amount of time. If time extends infinitely into the past, then an infinite number of events would have had to take place for our present to exist.

I say all that to establish the need for a beginning. If you eliminate the infinite past, then the concept of time starts to make sense. So then, the question is what kind of force could possibly start time? It's not possible that such a force would exist before time. If you place it before the creation of our world, then that force becomes the starting point for time, and you'll have to explain where it came from.

What is time, and how could it be created? I define time as a progression of change. The beginning of time, then, was a period where no progression had been made.

The force would have to be unchanging. If it could change, then it could not exist in a period without progress. It would have to have a beginning, and the question again would be where did that force come from? It's a never ending cycle.

The force would also have to be intelligent, or else our world would be complete chaos. Could you honestly say that you believe a world like ours could exist by chance alone? Our world follows strict rules, and it has an amazing sense of order. A world created by chance would more than likely be one of chance, lacking of any natural order.

I offer God as the explanation of the beginning. He is called the Alpha for a reason. Time was His creation. He did not exist in an infinite past before creation. He is also described in the Bible as one who never changes, which means you don't have to account for any changes in God. Therefore, God could exist in the beginning, in the period before change and progress.

Of course, God is also intelligent. And, because He is infinite in knowledge, and because He sees time differently from us, He didn't have to guess until He finally got creation right. He knew from the start what would work and what would not.

Based on this, I could go on into another argument, but I'm too tired, and I'm curious to see what you'll have to say about the arguments I've offered so far.

 

[Emmy]

Dear cogito76. In Galatians, chapter 6, verses 7-10. Even the world knows it, and secretely, is wary of it. Without God on your side, it is sure to have dire consequences. For Christians it is a loving way to teach. God is Love. I say this with love, cogito. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Where I start would depend on where you are currently at. If you are an atheist, I would start with the beginning of the Universe, and the fact that it is fantastically fine-tuned. It is so fine-tuned in fact, that the main scientific theory is that an infinite number of unobservable, unprovable universes popped into existence from absolute nothingness at a finite point in the past.

From there I would discuss the amazing chances against even a single functioning protein coming to exist by chance in the Universe, even given 13.72 billion years (Stephen Meyer discusses these issues in his book, The Signature in the Cell). I would also mention that if morality is anything other than an evolutionary development, it is strictly relative, and nothing is actually good or evil.

If you are still a theist, I would start with the prophecies of the Old Testament (Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, Isaiah 50, Zechariah 2, 3, 12, Daniel 9:24-27...) I would then discuss the fantastic evidence from archaeology and history, especially the evidence surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus which all but the most liberal handful of scholars accept (including Ehrman, Crosson, Spong and many other highly liberal scholars). These facts include

The twelve facts below are the minimal facts as given by Gary Habermas.

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).


Lastly, I would discuss the fantastic number of early documents for the New Testament, and the reasons to think that the basics of the Christian faith (including the Resurrection) were being preached in Jerusalem within 10 years of the crucifixion.

Great post! Does #5 have to be literally true? Could the disciples just have had a powerful emotional experience which they attributed to Jesus and His Resurrection?

Don't want to derail...just wondering.

 

[ephraimanesti]

In the spirit of full disclosure, I am an ex-evangelical Christian who no longer believes. I would describe myself now as agnostic.

I'm interested in what arguments you might use in discussion with me - a believer for many years who has heard (and used) many of the arguments I think you will use, before rejecting them later on. I finally rejected them as I found they did not hold up to rational scrutiny (not that the process was anywhere near as clinical and easy as that sounds!).

So which argument/position do you find the most rationally compelling for your belief? Or do you rely upon factors other than rationality to support your belief?

Cogito.

MY FRIEND,

Understanding that "ex-believers" are a dime a dozen and ex-Christians do not exist except in the day-dreams of desperate atheists, i would tell you that you have deluded yourself into thinking you have had something which, in reality, you have never experienced. It is a quantum leap from "believing" a set of doctrines and rules and a relationship with God by way of His Son by means of His indwelling Holy Spirit. Your "rational scrutiny" has no bearing on your Christianity--Christ-like-ness--and so any "arguments" or "rationally compelling" apologetic mumbo-jumbo heaped upon you would just lead you around the same old circle you have already been through and come up empty for your trouble.

What i would do is suggest you try reading the New Testament, front to back, with your Heart fully open--and FOLLOW DIRECTIONS. Your Lord awaits!

ABBA'S SLAVE,
ephraim

 

[Xpistis sopheiaX]

MY FRIEND,

Your "rational scrutiny" has no bearing on your Christianity--Christ-like-ness--and so any "arguments" or "rationally compelling" apologetic mumbo-jumbo heaped upon you would just lead you around the same old circle you have already been through and come up empty for your trouble.

What i would do is suggest you try reading the New Testament, front to back, with your Heart fully open--and FOLLOW DIRECTIONS. Your Lord awaits!

ABBA'S SLAVE,
ephraim

I would have to agree with this.

If I were to add anything, I don't think there is a "logical" argument on the planet that can appeal to someone who is only looking for "logical" reasons to believe in God.

But there is more to our experience than logic:

“We should not pretend to understand the world only by the intellect; we apprehend it just as much by feeling. Therefore, the judgment of the intellect is, at best, only the half of truth, and must, if it be honest, also come to an understanding of its inadequacy.”- Carl Jung

 

[pdudgeon]

Thanks for the reply, ChristianT.

What is the tiger at the Door to make you believe? Are you referring to Sin?

I do agree that in times of fear and stress we don't always act in reason - emotion and fear can guide our thoughts, actions and beliefs.

But I would argue that this is not humanity at its best. In my opinion, rational and considered thought based upon evidence, logic and reason (in that order) is the optimal basis for guiding our thoughts, actions and beliefs.

Cogito

the only problem with that approach is that it will only take you as far as your curent knowledge of the situation. No matter how much you know about that tiger, you cannot know what it will do next. God does.

so if you want to trust in your own knowledge to get you thru life you're going to be in a pickle, because your own knowledge will take you no further than you are right now. Beyond that point you must use faith. And logic would tell you that if God is the only being who knows what happens next, then He is your best option when it comes to walking thru life

 

[razeontherock]

1Jo 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life"

Jhn 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

 

[aiki]

You should take it all on faith. Don't demand proof of everything. None of us know anything for sure - which in a strange sense makes us all agnostic.

If none of us know anything for sure, you are included -- and your statement(s) above. Essentially, what you've just said, then, is that anything you say is unsure (unless, of course, you're an exception to your own statement.) Why should anyone take your comments seriously if you don't know anything for sure?

Selah.

 

[aiki]

None of us can know anything with absolutely 100% certainty without first hand observations.

How do you know you can trust your senses to accurately perceive what is around you? How do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that your senses aren't being deceived and you are actually in something like the Matrix?

Do you doubt that the planet Jupiter exists? How about atoms? Do you believe they exist? I mean, if you haven't observed these things first-hand, do you regard them as fantasy?

If something happens which appears to be God revealing himself to us, we have the freedom to believe whether it is God or if it is an unusual coincidence.

Certainly. But some conclusions are better than others; some conclusions make better sense of things. For example, if you're waiting in your car at a red light and you suddenly feel a sharp impact from the rear that snaps your head back and pops your entire vehicle forward, you hear a loud bang, and you see a car directly behind you with a bent hood and steam rising out of its radiator, do you conclude that the damaged car behind you has nothing to do with the sensations and sounds you've just experienced? Is it mere coincidence that the car behind you just happens to be sitting there with a bent hood and steam rising from its radiator? Is it reasonable to assume that something else entirely caused your sore neck and dented rear bumper? Just because one might be able to field an alternate theory as to what happened that doesn't involve the car behind you doesn't mean that theory is valid.

A better question is what we do when our heart and our head tell us two different things.

One's heart has little to nothing to do with establishing what is true. If your heart is full of affection and warm fuzzies for the wild grizzly bear that is roaring and charging toward you and your heart is telling you just to trust to the kindness and love of the bear, are you any less likely to be killed and eaten by the bear? Is your heart communicating to you the reality, the truth, of the jeopardy of your situation at that moment?

The Bible says this about the human heart:

Jeremiah 17:9
9 The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?

Selah.

 

[GrayAngel]

^^^"The heart" does not refer to the literal bodily organ. It has to do with the soul, not the body. Also, I believe the original word used, before it was Westernized for our benefit, referred to the kidney. No one ever believed that the kidney was the center of human emotion.

 

[aiki]

How do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that your senses aren't being deceived and you are actually in something like the Matrix?
You cannot know with absolutely 100% certainty.

Nonetheless, you trust those senses to accurately perceive the physical world in which you exist. You don't have absolute proof, no first-hand observations, that your physical senses are actually perceiving true reality, yet I doubt this hinders you at all from interacting confidently with the physical world around you. My point is that 100% certainty is a standard which not even science itself requires in establishing facts. In spite of this being the case, we take the things science uncovers about the physical world as being true and reliable. Why can we not do the same thing with God? There are excellent philosophical arguments in support of God's existence. There is the powerful witness of Creation to God's being. And there are the testimonies of millions of people who have met with God personally. None of these things provide us with a 100% guarantee of God's existence any more than the empirical method can tell us that the reality we perceive is the true one, yet they are, I believe, a sound basis upon which to rest a belief in the Creator. The belief that one must take the Christian worldview entirely on blind faith because nothing can be known with absolute certainty fails to take into account what I have just explained.

Do you doubt that the planet Jupiter exists? How about atoms? Do you believe they exist? I mean, if you haven't observed these things first-hand, do you regard them as fantasy?
Reputable scientists who are unbiased and have little or no ulterior motive have observed these things. Granted they could be making up things like Jupiter and atoms. But things like Jupiter and atoms are regularly written about and regularly observed. The only historical accounts of Jesus and God are what is written in the Bible.

So, you have no first-hand observations of Jupiter, or atoms, yet you do believe they exist. Why do you require a first-hand observation of God when you don't of these other things? Why the double standard?

God is regularly written about and people observe Him all the time in Nature and in the experiences of their daily lives.

Your assertion that scientists are unbiased and have no ulterior motives is profoundly misinformed. In fact, most secular scientists are philosophical naturalists or materialists and as a result rule out a priori even the possibility of the supernatural and the divine. Not only the lines of research but the interpretation of what is discovered by secular scientists is made to conform to their naturalistic and materialistic philosophical presuppositions.

In the example you cited, it would be safe to assume the damaged car which you see behind you is what caused the whiplash. This doesn't mean that a man overcoming insurmountable odds to beat cancer is attributable to God. That is unless God is merely your way of saying a unusual coincidence that worked to someone's benefit.

It doesn't mean a man overcoming insurmountable odds to beat cancer isn't attributable to God, either. You will go with the presuppositions of your worldview on this, I suspect. You seem to think coincidence, which has no causal power whatsoever, is responsible for a man's incredible recovery from cancer while I think a man who has overcome insurmountable odds - let me repeat: insurmountable odds - has been aided by God. Which conclusion seems to best fit with the facts? Mere coincidence working in spite of insurmountable odds? Or a divine Agent actively working to provide a cure from cancer? Coincidence, which is a word meaning, "This seems to have been arranged but I don't know how," doesn't cut it as far as I'm concerned. It certainly isn't a better response to an incredible recovery than saying, "God did it."

Is your heart communicating to you the reality, the truth, of the jeopardy of your situation at that moment?
Please clarify if you mean heart as the heart which sends blood throughout your body or the heart which is at the root of all emotion.

I think it pretty clear what I meant. To be very plain: I am speaking of the core of a person's Self, not the physical organ.

The Bible says this about the human heart:

Jeremiah 17:9
9 The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?


​

The Bible is not a medical guide. When the Bible was written, mankind knew very little about how the human body functioned, making it a far from perfect guide about humanity.

??? The verse above is not rendering a medical verdict.

Selah.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT


Folks, as a reminder, the guidelines for this forum are here. They include:

Debate
This forum is for discussion of questions with non-Christians. There are some areas of theology in which different Christians may believe differently.
In these cases, we would ask Christians to refrain from debating the matter here. You may point out that there is a differing viewpoint, but please do not use this forum to debate with other Christians. If Christians wish to discuss various doctrines with other Christians, they should do so in the Theology forums.​

 

[Iakobos]

As an ex christian you should well know that many christians do not base their belief upon talk, but upon experiences. That is what they fall back onto in times of doubt, that is what they try to recall when confronted with strong opposition. Those who believe they have had none are far easier to be swayed with reasoning.

 

[chilehed]

...I finally rejected them as I found they did not hold up to rational scrutiny...

I like to think that I'm pretty rational, and so far I've yet to find anyone who can provide such scrutiny. If you could convince me, it'd save me a lot of bother going to Mass on Sunday morning. So maybe you could bring up one of the arguments and tell me how it falls apart?

 

[Chany]

To go off of what chilehed said, can you do an argument against Aquinas' five proofs of God? That argument holds me to Christ.