Is the Whole of Apologetics Merely a Facade?

[cvanwey]

As the title suggests, do believers believe due to any presented 'arguments for God's existence'? Or, is the primary reason for belief in one's God, more-so due to personal experience and/or emotion alone?

Please take a look at this short video, which seems quite telling. I'm willing to bet practically the only 'reason' Dr. Craig truly believes, is because of point #6; and really nothing more. Does this hold true for you as well?

Do given arguments for God's existence lead you to a conclusion of "God"? Or, are all these arguments merely 'window dressing'? Meaning, even if all such arguments were debunked, even to your personal satisfaction, you would continue to remain a believer?

And if reason #6 is THE reason, what is the purpose of apologetics? Especially in light of the fact apologetics is not what converted you? Which begs the follow up question(s), why would you then expect apologetics to ever convert a fellow non-believer?

And finally, if reason #6 is really the only valid reason for maintaining faith, then can intercessory prayer - (asking God to touch the lives of the prayed for non-believers) - be a valid or viable way to win over atheists/agnostics/doubters/skeptics/other? If so, what are you guys waiting for?

 

[Unofficial Reverand Alex]

Interesting post, and something I've thought of many times before.

I have friends who have no religion. We talk about religion sometimes, often in a historical sense, but sometimes of the real possibility of God's existence. My non-religious friend can't see God as non-existent, largely because of the something-from-nothing idea & the idea that everything looks too well organized & improbable to be an accident.

Yet I am often reminded that faith is a gift from God; under Christianity's own belief system, people are basically incapable of belief in God if God had not given them this gift. Also under Christianity's belief system, all gifts from God must be accepted by free will. Arguments such as this can open people up to accepting faith in God, but some form of personal experience is ultimately the reason for belief. I too acknowledged the same reasons for God's existence as my non-religious friend, but God never meant much to me, until I had personal experience of Him saving me from damaging myself too badly after a disastrous high school break-up.

I think we also overlook some of the more subjective arguments. Butterflies, for example. I see a loving God in butterflies, because they are designed entirely for beauty. Butterflies are large, highly visible, slow, clumsy, and besides a few poisonous species, they have no defense mechanisms whatsoever. How would the brutal world of evolution answer that? And how would a disinterested God come up with this idea? Something that gives beauty & color without any practical purpose could only be built into the world by someone higher than nature itself, and this someone would only do it if they really cared about & loved what they created. I add color to projects I care about; I don't do anything special if I'm just writing a paper.

Yet this comes back to #6, with personal experience...part of why I swear by my little butterfly argument, why it's so persuasive to me, is because of the peace & happiness I felt when it first came to mind. That is a very personal experience; I truly felt some sort of loving presence through everything around me when I connected butterflies with a loving Creator. Without this experience, I suppose I could've dismissed it as a quirk of evolution, and gone on with my day.

 

[paul1149]

I think apologetics can create a plausible case for God, and thus clear the way for faith, especially among those who have been subjected to the world's anti-apologetics all their lives. That can be a very important role, but while it can take you to the threshold of faith, it cannot substitute for faith itself.

 

[cvanwey]

Interesting post, and something I've thought of many times before.

Thank you. I have a sneaking suspicion that reason #6 encompasses a large majority of 'the reason' for most/all current believers.?..?...?

I have friends who have no religion. We talk about religion sometimes, often in a historical sense, but sometimes of the real possibility of God's existence. My non-religious friend can't see God as non-existent, largely because of the something-from-nothing idea & the idea that everything looks too well organized & improbable to be an accident.

Sure, this might make him a 'general/generic deist'. But then his/her path is still just beginning, as (s)he still has to navigate the very long road to the logic of the asserted Christian God?

Yet I am often reminded that faith is a gift from God; under Christianity's own belief system, people are basically incapable of belief in God if God had not given them this gift.

You do understand your interlocutor cannot do anything with this response, right? These are completely not falsifiable assertions.

Also under Christianity's belief system, all gifts from God must be accepted by free will.

Tell this to 'doubting Thomas' and 'Saul of Tarsus', just for starters. I trust you understand that many remain non-believers, because they have not received contact from such said agent? Millions, if not billions, claim to receive revelation from 'God'. I have not felt any contact.

I will ask again. Does God answer the earnest call to intercessory prayer? Furthermore, this does not ruin 'free will'. Satan and a third of the angles know of God's existence, and they chose not to follow.

Arguments such as this can open people up to accepting faith in God, but some form of personal experience is ultimately the reason for belief. I too acknowledged the same reasons for God's existence as my non-religious friend, but God never meant much to me, until I had personal experience of Him saving me from damaging myself too badly after a disastrous high school break-up.

How do you know your personal experience was from the Christian God? Are you familiar with the term 'external world skepticism'?

"No synthetic proposition can ever truly be known because there will always exist an infinite multitude of possible explanations for sense data."

I think we also overlook some of the more subjective arguments. Butterflies, for example. I see a loving God in butterflies, because they are designed entirely for beauty. Butterflies are large, highly visible, slow, clumsy, and besides a few poisonous species, they have no defense mechanisms whatsoever. How would the brutal world of evolution answer that? And how would a disinterested God come up with this idea? Something that gives beauty & color without any practical purpose could only be built into the world by someone higher than nature itself, and this someone would only do it if they really cared about & loved what they created. I add color to projects I care about; I don't do anything special if I'm just writing a paper.

Species go extinct all the time. Furthermore, for every colorful butterfly, there exists ( 6 Terrifying Parasites That Exist Solely To Wreak Havoc On Your Body). But regardless, this argument is not what admittedly brought you to God. Not even probably in the slightest... Thus, it really warrants no further effort to discuss Again, is apologetics a worthy topic to even engage?

Yet this comes back to #6, with personal experience...part of why I swear by my little butterfly argument, why it's so persuasive to me, is because of the peace & happiness I felt when it first came to mind. That is a very personal experience; I truly felt some sort of loving presence through everything around me when I connected butterflies with a loving Creator. Without this experience, I suppose I could've dismissed it as a quirk of evolution, and gone on with my day.

This response is not to sound sarcastic, but I have to ask...

(Warm-squishy-lovey-dovey) feelings = YHWH? Again, please explore 'external world skepticism', as defined above.

 

[cvanwey]

I think apologetics can create a plausible case for God, and thus clear the way for faith, especially among those who have been subjected to the world's anti-apologetics all their lives. That can be a very important role, but while it can take you to the threshold of faith, it cannot substitute for faith itself.

Let's test this...

Why do you believe? Assuming it is because of point #6, I am then willing to bet that if points 1-5 were thoroughly debunked, to your satisfaction, you would still hold your current position of faith in God, right? If so, then reason #6 is the only reason, and apologetics seems to serve no purpose for you, right?

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

We don't believe because of arguments, we just use them to defend ourselves against people who use them.

 

[cvanwey]

We don't believe because of arguments.

I gather most of you don't. If the reason you believe, is personal experience, then I again have to ask...

Do you believe in the power of prayer? Do you believe in intercessory prayer? Seems as though the matter could be settled quite swiftly. The entire debate between whether or not God exists, would be settled. All would still have free will to follow or reject.

we just use them to defend ourselves against people who use them.

Why not just pray for the non-believers to be contacted, which-in-turn, all would either come to Him, or reject Him?

Apologetics appears worthless?

 

[public hermit]

Please take a look at this short video, which seems quite telling. I'm willing to bet practically the only 'reason' Dr. Craig truly believes, is because of point #6; and really nothing more.

Why would you make that bet? He said he believed it for those six reasons. Why do you assume he is lying. Is that because you are not persuaded? Are you assuming he must not be persuaded, because you aren't? That must be the case, because you quickly move to the clunky, and unearned, premise that #6 is the only possible reason for maintaining faith. See, you can't possibly believe that you might be wrong. And, you don't care how careful an argument you make. Let's face it, you use the apologetics section to promote your ham-fisted version of atheism. Shame on you, and your fallacious reasoning, cvanwey.

 

[Aussie Pete]

As the title suggests, do believers believe due to any presented 'arguments for God's existence'? Or, is the primary reason for belief in one's God, more-so due to personal experience and/or emotion alone?

Please take a look at this short video, which seems quite telling. I'm willing to bet practically the only 'reason' Dr. Craig truly believes, is because of point #6; and really nothing more. Does this hold true for you as well?

Do given arguments for God's existence lead you to a conclusion of "God"? Or, are all these arguments merely 'window dressing'? Meaning, even if all such arguments were debunked, even to your personal satisfaction, you would continue to remain a believer?

And if reason #6 is THE reason, what is the purpose of apologetics? Especially in light of the fact apologetics is not what converted you? Which begs the follow up question(s), why would you then expect apologetics to ever convert a fellow non-believer?

And finally, if reason #6 is really the only valid reason for maintaining faith, then can intercessory prayer - (asking God to touch the lives of the prayed for non-believers) - be a valid or viable way to win over atheists/agnostics/doubters/skeptics/other? If so, what are you guys waiting for?

I was well aware that God existed from a very young age. I did not read the Bible until after I was born again. My concept of God was false, but I had no doubt that He was real. I did not need apologetics or intellectual persuasion. I knew something about Jesus from Sunday school, but I had no idea about salvation. Apologetics may persuade some people. The danger is that an intellectual presentation of truth will produce an equally mental appreciation of Christianity. The devil knows the truth and he trembles. We need a change of heart as well as a change of mind. The simple gospel was enough to convict me and cause me to say, "What must I do?" Yes, I was scared into the kingdom of God. That was only the starting point.

The gospel is the power of God to bring about salvation. Preparing a person to hear the gospel is God's business. Praying for the lost is a must. Living in a way that testifies to the reality of Christ is vital. People should see Jesus in us, even though they do not know what they are seeing.

 

[Unofficial Reverand Alex]

Thank you. I have a sneaking suspicion that reason #6 encompasses a large majority of 'the reason' for most/all current believers.?..?...?

First of all, I just want to mention that I really like this discussion. I feel a bit like I'm on the losing end right now, but that's just showing that I'm under a bit of a challenge, and who doesn't love a challenge every now & then?

To address the first point, I think Reason #6 certainly is a big reason, if not the reason, for belief. External world skepticism is an interesting thing to bring up that I kind of wish was brought up more often; there are so many more possibilities out there for everything--everything!--that we'll never really be able to prove/disprove or even notice the existence of all of them. This may point towards the pervasiveness of Reason #6, as personal experience can still use our intuition & gut feelings to point us to a truth that is beyond our comprehension. Whether or not that consitutes proof in any way is up for discussion, but as long as this thread is discussing the nature of apologetics, it seems a little odd to bring this point into an apologetic argument. As long as we're just looking at reasons why people believe, those reasons don't need to be proven for people to hold them.

Science is the classic example of this. People put an immense amount of trust in science & scientific beliefs; just because gravity has always worked really doesn't prove that it will continue to do so. Who's to say there isn't some sort of energy wave that is running out of fuel? We come back to external world skepticism; we simply cannot prove/disprove all these possibilities that may leave us flying through space tomorrow morning at 5:14am. Yet personal experience has shown us that we need not worry; personal experience is why we believe in science, I suppose, though I am currently talking about this in a way I never have before, so this is often the case where next week I'll re-think what I said & come up with a much more intelligent way to say it, or something different, depending on my thoughts & how far I take this absurdly run-on sentence!

I suppose you could start looking through testimonies to see what people point to for their belief in God; I believe there's a section of these forums exclusively for testimonies. John Pridmore--Story of a Heart is my personal favorite testimony to hear & share, and that one is in line with the aforementioned Saul of Tarsus, with a powerful experience upon a person who seems the farthest from any sort of loving God. J. Warner Wallace is an interesting one; his book Cold Case Christianity is an examination of Christianity with his experience as a cold-case detective. Throughout the book, he describes his own process of converting from a self-described Angry Atheist to someone who is now a Christian author & speaker. Apologetics certainly was his "open door" to receiving faith in God, as his historical analysis of the claims of Christianity is what led Him to God. I haven't read the whole book, so I don't know all the details of his own life that he described.

Species go extinct all the time. Furthermore, for every colorful butterfly, there exists ( 6 Terrifying Parasites That Exist Solely To Wreak Havoc On Your Body). But regardless, this argument is not what admittedly brought you to God. Not even probably in the slightest... Thus, it really warrants no further effort to discuss Again, is apologetics a worthy topic to even engage?

Ah, my butterflies! I love butterflies. I don't care if I have a warrior on horseback from the Lord of the Rings movie as my profile photo, a real man can admit his love for butterflies in public!

Anyway, the mention of colorful butterflies being contrasted by terrifying parasites that made me not go past Page 1 of the article really just shows the existence of a divine enemy. These parasites do nothing to disprove my mention of butterflies; they just show the other side of it. Some say that if you can prove the existence of the devil, you necessarily prove the existence of God. I suppose there's some merit to this idea, but again, that would likely be a thought to come out of personal experience.

No, butterflies are not what brought me to God; it was His saving help through the lowest point in my life that brought me to Him. The butterfly argument (calling it The Butterfly Effect would be misleading...) was something that came to me a few years after my "conversion". [I have been born & raised Catholic & my religion didn't change. Nevertheless, my understanding of the faith I had taken for granted changed dramatically, so I truly believe I converted from a lax Catholic to a faithful Catholic.] Whether there was an experience that brought me to faith when I was little, I don't know; a lot of experiences from the younger years are forgotten, or maybe God revealed Himself in a way I understood then, but can't understand now. In any case, that's a side issue. While these butterflies didn't bring me to God, they brought me closer to Him. I see little traces of beauty like this all over the world now, things that have no reason to exist, except if it pleased a loving divine creator.

And we're back to external world skepticism... I can justify this as the Christian God because of the premise that God Is Love. This, and the notion of grace freely given, are unique aspects of the Christian God, found in no other religion to my limited knowledge. I suppose it just makes the most sense to me that the only God known to literally be love would be the kind of Divine Creator to make beautiful things, just to make people happy.

This response is not to sound sarcastic, but I have to ask...

(Warm-squishy-lovey-dovey) feelings = YHWH? Again, please explore 'external world skepticism', as defined above.

No sarcasm taken; it's a legitimate question.

Have you ever heard of the people who find the Divine in nature? Taoism is like this, along with many modern people who have a sort of "rouge spirituality", where they immerse themselves in the wind, the river, the trees & the birds, and just feel surrounded by beauty & wonder & the presence of something beyond this world. Try it sometime, I think it's an idea that's compatible with any religion.

We stress about time. Do you think that there would be any stress in a timelessBei world? No deadlines, no clocks, and you'll always have time to talk to that person, or begin this hobby! God, in a broad sense, is infinite. This implies that He is timeless. Finding a deep sense of peace is a deep sense of timelessness, and that would imply that we are in the presence of the Infinite. Since nothing in this world is possibly infinite (physics & chemistry & all of science simply do not allow things to simply never begin & never end), there would be some sort of Divine beyond this world. [I hesitate to use the term Divine Being, because God is not a being, so much as He is Being Itself.]

Hm. This is a much longer post than I thought it would be! I suppose I'll leave it off here & let the discussion continue.

And a side note: Your profile photo made me laugh so much, @cvanwey !

 

[cvanwey]

Why would you make that bet? He said he believed it for those six reasons. Why do you assume he is lying.

He is lying, kind of.... Did you see the video I posted in post #711 of 'Knowledge' of Existence

Please skip forward to (01:30 - 02:30) of the video. You know, the one I have been repeatedly posting, for which no Christian will touch...

Is that because you are not persuaded? Are you assuming he must not be persuaded, because you aren't?

Not at all. His sole reason for belief is because he feels He has been directly contacted. I have not. He should be honest to all non-believers, that this is the sole reason He believes, and not hide behind arguments, which are not worth their salt, regardless.... Meaning, they do not matter if they are all refuted, even to his satisfaction...

That must be the case, because you quickly move to the clunky, and unearned, premise that #6 is the only possible reason for maintaining faith.

How does that 'crow' taste? I will repeat... I'm willing to bet that a majority number of Christians came to God, NOT by apologetic's arguments, but instead by personal experience and/or emotion alone; just like Dr. Craig. And also, just like some of the ones whom have dared to respond here, thus far...

See, you can't possibly believe that you might be wrong. And, you don't care how careful an argument you make. Let's face it, you use the apologetics section to promote your ham-fisted version of atheism. Shame on you, and your fallacious reasoning, cvanwey.

Um... If you saw that video I posted elsewhere, you would know I would have no choice but to believe, if I was contacted. I tell you what... Let's settle this simply. Pray for God to contact me. I will no longer doubt His existence.

'Apologetics' ain't-gonna-do-it.

 

[public hermit]

He is lying, kind of.... Did you see the video I posted in post #711 of 'Knowledge' of Existence

Please skip forward to (01:30 - 02:30) of the video. You know, the one I have been repeatedly posting, for which no Christian will touch...

Lord have mercy, cvanwey, I didn't realize I had to know #711 post in some other thread to follow the (possibly) tight reasoning of your argument. Okay, my apologies. I was (possibly) partly wrong.

My bad, continue on with your evangelical efforts...

 

[paul1149]

"If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself. - Jhn 7:17

'You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. - Jer 29:13​

 

[cvanwey]

"If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself. - Jhn 7:17

'You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. - Jer 29:13​

I noticed you skipped right over post #5. Does this mean you have conceded? I will re-post it a second time, just in case you change your mind:

Let's test this...

Why do you believe? Assuming it is because of point #6, I am then willing to bet that if points 1-5 were thoroughly debunked, to your satisfaction, you would still hold your current position of faith in God, right? If so, then reason #6 is the only reason, and apologetics seems to serve no purpose for you, right?

 

[jacks]

O.K. I finally watched the video. (It was very short and concise, thank you.) Reasons 1-5 I think casts doubt on the prevailing explanations of existence without God. Reason 6 is probably the necessary piece to see God as the true answer. Without 6 (personal experience) then one is only limited by their imagination to explain 1-5. Your question then; does this make apologetics merely a facade? I'd say not entirely since it can lay the groundwork for someone to consider God as an explanation. I can say for me personally, it was the insufficiency of other explanations that made me open myself to Gods existence.

 

[cvanwey]

First of all, I just want to mention that I really like this discussion. I feel a bit like I'm on the losing end right now, but that's just showing that I'm under a bit of a challenge, and who doesn't love a challenge every now & then?

Awesome

To address the first point, I think Reason #6 certainly is a big reason, if not the reason, for belief. External world skepticism is an interesting thing to bring up that I kind of wish was brought up more often; there are so many more possibilities out there for everything--everything!--that we'll never really be able to prove/disprove or even notice the existence of all of them. This may point towards the pervasiveness of Reason #6, as personal experience can still use our intuition & gut feelings to point us to a truth that is beyond our comprehension. Whether or not that consitutes proof in any way is up for discussion, but as long as this thread is discussing the nature of apologetics, it seems a little odd to bring this point into an apologetic argument. As long as we're just looking at reasons why people believe, those reasons don't need to be proven for people to hold them.

Science is the classic example of this. People put an immense amount of trust in science & scientific beliefs; just because gravity has always worked really doesn't prove that it will continue to do so. Who's to say there isn't some sort of energy wave that is running out of fuel? We come back to external world skepticism; we simply cannot prove/disprove all these possibilities that may leave us flying through space tomorrow morning at 5:14am. Yet personal experience has shown us that we need not worry; personal experience is why we believe in science, I suppose, though I am currently talking about this in a way I never have before, so this is often the case where next week I'll re-think what I said & come up with a much more intelligent way to say it, or something different, depending on my thoughts & how far I take this absurdly run-on sentence!

I suppose you could start looking through testimonies to see what people point to for their belief in God; I believe there's a section of these forums exclusively for testimonies. John Pridmore--Story of a Heart is my personal favorite testimony to hear & share, and that one is in line with the aforementioned Saul of Tarsus, with a powerful experience upon a person who seems the farthest from any sort of loving God. J. Warner Wallace is an interesting one; his book Cold Case Christianity is an examination of Christianity with his experience as a cold-case detective. Throughout the book, he describes his own process of converting from a self-described Angry Atheist to someone who is now a Christian author & speaker. Apologetics certainly was his "open door" to receiving faith in God, as his historical analysis of the claims of Christianity is what led Him to God. I haven't read the whole book, so I don't know all the details of his own life that he described.

You are going to equate your faith in gravity, which can continue to be tested/repeated at will (equally) to that of a warm experience you felt in high school, via a break up?

Second of all, you might want to now read "The Case Against the Case for Christ" by Robert Price. But again, it won't matter. Your own personal experience is what is leading you, not the 'anecdotal testimonials' of others.

The point of external world skepticism is to apply intellectual honesty. HOW do you know YHWH is the source? HOW were you able to rule out an infinite number of alternative causations? See below...

Ah, my butterflies! I love butterflies. I don't care if I have a warrior on horseback from the Lord of the Rings movie as my profile photo, a real man can admit his love for butterflies in public!

Anyway, the mention of colorful butterflies being contrasted by terrifying parasites that made me not go past Page 1 of the article really just shows the existence of a divine enemy. These parasites do nothing to disprove my mention of butterflies; they just show the other side of it. Some say that if you can prove the existence of the devil, you necessarily prove the existence of God. I suppose there's some merit to this idea, but again, that would likely be a thought to come out of personal experience.

No, butterflies are not what brought me to God; it was His saving help through the lowest point in my life that brought me to Him. The butterfly argument (calling it The Butterfly Effect would be misleading...) was something that came to me a few years after my "conversion". [I have been born & raised Catholic & my religion didn't change. Nevertheless, my understanding of the faith I had taken for granted changed dramatically, so I truly believe I converted from a lax Catholic to a faithful Catholic.] Whether there was an experience that brought me to faith when I was little, I don't know; a lot of experiences from the younger years are forgotten, or maybe God revealed Himself in a way I understood then, but can't understand now. In any case, that's a side issue. While these butterflies didn't bring me to God, they brought me closer to Him. I see little traces of beauty like this all over the world now, things that have no reason to exist, except if it pleased a loving divine creator.

And we're back to external world skepticism... I can justify this as the Christian God because of the premise that God Is Love. This, and the notion of grace freely given, are unique aspects of the Christian God, found in no other religion to my limited knowledge. I suppose it just makes the most sense to me that the only God known to literally be love would be the kind of Divine Creator to make beautiful things, just to make people happy.

The 'butterflies' do not comport with your reasoning. You've admitted this yourself. Thus, I care not to address this topic any longer.

*************************************

The fact that you feel 'love' confirms YHWH?

(Hypothetical - one of a billion alternative conclusions about external world skepticism) - Can't a creator be filled with 'hate'? Couldn't it make just as much sense that such a creator likes to watch his creation suffer? Maybe our creator is an agent which chooses not to contact us, or only contacts some, and not others, or further still, gives completely mixed messages to billions of individuals. Maybe He likes jerking with us? Maybe the thousands of starving children, cancer, etc, is all part of his vindictive voyeuristic characteristics?

Maybe our creator makes no contact with us at all, and we imagine our own conclusions?

Maybe the universe always was, which leads no room for a creator to begin with?

Maybe you are being contacted by a differing God, but you are confusing this YHWH character because this is what you were taught?

etc etc etc etc etc etc etc...................................................................................

And a side note: Your profile photo made me laugh so much, @cvanwey !

LOL. TY Yea, it's so simplistic. Yet, really seems to speak volumes.

 

[cvanwey]

O.K. I finally watched the video. (It was very short and concise, thank you.) Reasons 1-5 I think casts doubt on the prevailing explanations of existence without God. Reason 6 is probably the necessary piece to see God as the true answer. Without 6 (personal experience) then one is only limited by their imagination to explain 1-5. Your question then; does this make apologetics merely a facade? I'd say not entirely since it can lay the groundwork for someone to consider God as an explanation. I can say for me personally, it was the insufficiency of other explanations that made me open myself to Gods existence.

In a nutshell, you are stating:

- If points (1-5) seem to make sense, but you do not experience point 6, then 'faith' in 'god' may still be on shakey ground?

- If points (1-5) are debunked, to your satisfaction, but you experience point 6, then your belief will still remain just as solid (with or without points 1-5)?

 

[Unofficial Reverand Alex]

Awesome



You are going to equate your faith in gravity, which can continue to be tested/repeated at will (equally) to that of a warm experience you felt in high school, via a break up?

Second of all, you might want to now read "The Case Against the Case for Christ" by Robert Price. But again, it won't matter. Your own personal experience is what is leading you, not the 'anecdotal testimonials' of others.

The point of external world skepticism is to apply intellectual honesty. HOW do you know YHWH is the source? HOW were you able to rule out an infinite number of alternative causations? See below...



The 'butterflies' do not comport with your reasoning. You've admitted this yourself. Thus, I care not to address this topic any longer.

*************************************

The fact that you feel 'love' confirms YHWH?

(Hypothetical - one of a billion alternative conclusions about external world skepticism) - Can't a creator be filled with 'hate'? Couldn't it make just as much sense that such a creator likes to watch his creation suffer? Maybe our creator is an agent which chooses not to contact us, or only contacts some, and not others, or further still, gives completely mixed messages to billions of individuals. Maybe He likes jerking with us? Maybe the thousands of starving children, cancer, etc, is all part of his vindictive voyeuristic characteristics?

Maybe our creator makes no contact with us at all, and we imagine our own conclusions?

Maybe the universe always was, which leads no room for a creator to begin with?

Maybe you are being contacted by a differing God, but you are confusing this YHWH character because this is what you were taught?

etc etc etc etc etc etc etc...................................................................................



LOL. TY Yea, it's so simplistic. Yet, really seems to speak volumes.

I think I can respond to all of this by saying that things sometimes sounds so much better in my mind then they do when somebody else reads it! I think a lot of this may have to do with our own perception of these things. By nature of religion dealing with something beyond this world, trying to put these experiences into words of this world is very difficult. Even experiences we feel every day can be difficult to put into words; can you ever truly tell someone how your day went? Sentences mean something different for different people; you don't truly know how I was experiencing what I described, and I never will for you. [Hmmm...I just realized that I basically gave an elaborate cop-out for everything I just said...

Regardless, It seems as if intercessory prayer is something else you're bringing up a lot. My question on this point is this: Suppose I did pray for you. I could do a Rosary, a Holy Hour, the Stations of the Cross, anything that seems like a strong prayer that you may or may not know about. Let's say the prayer "works", and you have contact with God. What would you do about it? I know this will depend on a lot of details you do not have, I still think you're be a little interesting for the discussion. I know this would depend on a lot of details you do not have, unless this actually does happen (which would be kind of cool!), but I still think it could be a little interesting for the discussion. Unless you don't think it would be interesting, in which case, you have my full permission to ignore this post! I was just wondering, that's all.

I think I just need to think over this a bit more before answering. You bring up interesting points, and some I haven't heard before, so this will take me a bit of time to work out. Cool?

 

[cvanwey]

I think I can respond to all of this by saying that things sometimes sounds so much better in my mind then they do when somebody else reads it! I think a lot of this may have to do with our own perception of these things. By nature of religion dealing with something beyond this world, trying to put these experiences into words of this world is very difficult. Even experiences we feel every day can be difficult to put into words; can you ever truly tell someone how your day went? Sentences mean something different for different people; you don't truly know how I was experiencing what I described, and I never will for you. [Hmmm...I just realized that I basically gave an elaborate cop-out for everything I just said...

Regardless, It seems as if intercessory prayer is something else you're bringing up a lot. My question on this point is this: Suppose I did pray for you. I could do a Rosary, a Holy Hour, the Stations of the Cross, anything that seems like a strong prayer that you may or may not know about. Let's say the prayer "works", and you have contact with God. What would you do about it? I know this will depend on a lot of details you do not have, I still think you're be a little interesting for the discussion. I know this would depend on a lot of details you do not have, unless this actually does happen (which would be kind of cool!), but I still think it could be a little interesting for the discussion. Unless you don't think it would be interesting, in which case, you have my full permission to ignore this post! I was just wondering, that's all.

I think I just need to think over this a bit more before answering. You bring up interesting points, and some I haven't heard before, so this will take me a bit of time to work out. Cool?

I feel this is an extremely important topic. Why? I'm coming to the conclusion, more and more so, that apologetics is nothing more than a 'front.' Most did not come to their belief by arguments and 'evidence'. Most came to belief by personal experience and/or emotion. Thus, if the believer did not come to belief by arguments and 'evidence', then what would lead the believer to surmise this would work for the atheist/doubter/skeptic/etc?

And no, you have not copped-out! You are being honest

And yes, in line with the many Verses in the Bible, please pray for God to contact me. Do I know what I would do if He does? Honestly, no. Thus, 1) please pray for Him to contact me in a way for which I have no doubt He exists. 2) And if He does not, please ask Him why He will not. And if both requests go unanswered, then please reference the following Verses below, and ask yourself in earnest -- (why should I apply any merit at all to these Verses)? If they do not work in earnest, by a true Christian attempting to bring another to Him, than what the heck IS prayer good for?.?.?.?.?

Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23

 

[JSRG]

We don't believe because of arguments, we just use them to defend ourselves against people who use them.

What about the various Christians who became Christians as a result of apologetics arguments?